Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924001101074 
 
'Agriculture appropriatioi^ bill, mi 
 
 ' (GRAIN-GRADES AMENDMENT) 
 
 \ 
 
 y HEARINGS 
 
 > BEFORE THE / . / '\ 
 
 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE A|D FORESTRY: 
 . UNITED STATES SEN Am "' / 
 
 SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS "*"■ 
 
 FIRST SESSION 
 
 ON 
 
 H. R. 12717 
 
 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT 
 
 OF AGRICULTURE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING 
 
 JUNE 30, 1917, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 
 
 MAY 19 AND 20, 1916 
 
 Printed for thq use of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry 
 
 ^ 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFEICE 
 
 1916 
 
COMJIITTEE OX AGRICULTrUE AND FORESTRY. 
 
 THOMAS P. GORE, 
 GEORGE E. CHAMBERLAIN, Oregon. 
 ELLISON D. SMITH, Soa-th Caroliaa. 
 HOKE SMITH, Georgia. 
 MORRIS SHEPPAKD, Texas. 
 JOHN F. SHAFROTH, Colorado. 
 JOSEPH E. RANSDELL, Louisiana. 
 WILLIAM H. THOMPSON, Kansas. 
 KD. S. JOHNSON, Soutli Dalsota. 
 
 Olilalioma, Chairman. 
 FRANCIS E. WARREN. Wyoming. 
 CARROLL S. PAGE, Vermont. 
 ASLE J. (JROXNA, North Dalsota. 
 JAMES 11. BRADY, Idaho. 
 GEORGE W. NOKHIS, Nebraslsa. 
 WILLIAM S. KENYON, Iowa. 
 JAMES W. WADSWORTH, Jr.., New York. 
 
 J. Roy Thompson, Clerk. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 statement of— Page. 
 Charles J. Braud, Chief of the Office of Markets and Rural Organiza- 
 tion, Department of Agriculture 5 
 
 J, W. T. Duvel, in charge of grain standardization investigations, 
 
 Bureau of Plant Industry, Department of Agriculture 6 
 
 Hon. Thomas L. Rubey, of Missouri 63 
 
 Hon. Carl Vrooman, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture 72 
 
 Changes suggested by the Secretary of Agriculture in the grain grades 
 
 amendment 81 
 
 3 
 
AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917-GRAIN-GRADES 
 
 AMENDMENT. 
 
 PRIDAY, MAY 19, 1916. 
 
 I 
 
 United States Senate, 
 
 COMMIJKEEE ON AgEKULTUEE AND FoEESTEY, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 
 The committee met at 2.15 o'clock p. m., pursuant to call, Senator 
 Thomas P. Gore presiding. 
 
 Present: Senators Gore (chairman). Smith of South Carolina, 
 Smith of Georgia, Sheppard, Eansdell, Thompson, Johnson of South 
 Dakota, ©ronna, Brady, and Wadsworth. 
 
 The committee resumed consideration of the bill (H. E. 12717) 
 making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the 
 fiscal year ending June 30, 1917. 
 
 The Chairman. Senator Reed is present. Do you desire to make 
 any statement now, Senator? 
 
 'Senator Reed. No ; I simply wanted to inquire when you are going 
 to get to that provision of the bill relating to grain inspection. 
 
 The Chairman. We are right there now, and Dr. Brand is here 
 to speak on it. 
 
 Senator Reed. I am hardly prepared to discuss it this afternoon. 
 I will need two or three hours to get some facts together. 
 
 Senator Shafeoth. What do you think of hearing him now? 
 
 Senator Reed. That is satisfactory to me. I will sit here and 
 listen. 
 
 The Chairman. We will be very glad to have you Senator. 
 
 Dr. Brand, you may proceed now. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES J. BRAND, CHIEF OF THE OFFICE 
 OF MARKETS AND RURAL ORGANIZATION, DEPARTMENT OF 
 AGRICULTURE. 
 
 Mr. Brand. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as Dr. Duvel is here I pro- 
 pose merely to address myself to the provisions of the warehouse 
 bill, and he has all of the details with reference to grain rates, so it 
 would be advisable to call on him on that subject. 
 
 With respect to the warehouse bill, I have felt that we covered 
 that alinost sufficiently the other day, but I do not want to assume 
 that at all. 
 
 The Chairman. I thought. Doctor, that you would probably have 
 some remarks to make in regard to the grain grading act. I think 
 the warehouse bill has been pretty well covered, unless you have 
 some statements or suggestions since. 
 
 5 
 
6 AGBICULTUBE APPEOPHIATION BILL, lOll. 
 
 Mr. Beand. We have only the suggestions that I made at the 
 previous hearing regarding the insertion of hay and seeds. Beyond 
 that there are no suggestions to be made. 
 
 Senator Warren. You are speaking now of the warehouse 
 measure ? 
 
 Mr. Brand. Yes. If there are any further questions, I will be 
 glad to respond. 
 
 The Chairman. As I understand it, both the grain grading act, 
 the cotton futures act, and the warehouse act are parts of a general 
 plan, a general movement to standardize agricultural products. 
 
 Mr. Brand. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chair jr AN. In order to laj' the foundation for a better mar- 
 keting system in the country. 
 
 Mr. Brand. Yes; and we are proposing to add the question of 
 cotton tare, upon which we have done a great deal of work, as has 
 been mentioned before the committee previously. 
 
 Senator Reed. Now, is somebody else coming this afternoon? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes; Dr. Duvel is here. He is especially familiar 
 with the subject of grain grading. We will hear you now, Doctor. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. J. W. T. DUVEI, IN CHARGE OF GRAIN 
 STANDARDIZATION INVESTIGATIONS, BUREAU OF PLANT 
 INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Senator, I do not know Avhether you want me to go 
 ahead and discuss this bill or whether you prefer to ask questions. 
 
 The Chairman. We will do both? Will you state just what your 
 IJosition is, Doctor? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. I am crop technologist, in charge of grain standardiza- 
 tion investigations of the Bureau of Plant Industry. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, Doctor, I think first we would be glad to 
 hear you in your own way discuss the proposed grain grading act. 
 After that the Senators will be at liberty to ask you any questions 
 they desire. I suppose we would like to have first the background in 
 the way of the need for this legislation, the history of the progress of 
 the movement. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. The need of this legislation, as I see it, comes from two 
 points, the farmers' organizations and producers who have been dis- 
 satisfied with the grading in the various markets, and the serious com- 
 plaints that have come from European buyers of American grain 
 being dissatisfied with American certificates. 
 
 Our grain situation is ^ery different from the cotton situation. 
 Practically all of our grain is exported on the basis of American cer- 
 tificate final. There is no arbitration in London ; there is no arbitra- 
 tion at any point in fact, because the contract specifies that the cer- 
 tificate is final. If they deliver the grain on the other side the 
 European importers are compelled to accept it, except as individual 
 firms may see fit to arbitrate or make settlement. This same legida- 
 tion is likewise supported by the grain dealers and millers of the 
 country, because they feel a good deal on this point like they did 
 with the rebate proposition in connection with freight rates that it 
 will eliminate unfair competition. 
 
 Now as to the history of this movement, I think the first active 
 movement was when Senator Gronna, of North Dakota, introduced a 
 
AGKICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, lOH. 7 
 
 bill for Federal inspection in the Fifty-seventh Congress in 1903 and 
 a similar bill has 
 
 Senator Geonna (interposing). I want to give my colleague credit 
 for that, because it is my colleague's bill. That is Senator McCum- 
 ber's bill. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes, Senator McCumber ; and Senator McCumber has 
 introduced, I think, a similar bill in every Congress since, realizing 
 the need of legislation of this kind for the people in his section and 
 for the entire country. Also I think Senator Gronna, when a member 
 of the House, introduced a similar bill for Federal inspection. Like- 
 wise other Members of Congress, both in the House and Senate, have 
 introduced bills of this kind, all of which have been exceedingly 
 beneficial in educating the people throughout the country as to the 
 need of such legislation. 
 
 Now, the primary object is to have a uniform system of grading. 
 I think that principle is absolutely universal, including the exporters 
 who are opposed to this measure, and a few of the organizations in 
 the interior that do not agree fully with this bill, but they are all 
 unanimous in their position that we should have uniformity of grades. 
 
 Senator Geonna. What organizations are opposed to this bill ? 
 
 Mr. DtJVEL-. The only organizations, so far as I know, that are 
 opposed to this bill are the New York Produce Exchange, the Phila- 
 delphia Commercial Exchange, the Baltimore Chamber of Commerce, 
 the Minnesota Railroad and Warehouse Commission, and perhaps the 
 Missouri War»house Commission. 
 
 Senator Geonna. The Minnesota Railroad and Warehouse Com- 
 mission is a commission elected by the people of that State. 
 
 Mr. DiTVEL. It is a State organization, but of the trade organiza- 
 tions, so far as I know, there are only three of them — the three named 
 on the Atlantic seaboard — that are opposed. 
 
 Senator Geonna. How many farmers' organizations are in favor 
 of this particular bill ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. The farmers' organizations have taken, as a rule, this 
 position, that this bill does not go far enough to suit them. The 
 majority of the organizations want Federal inspection out and out; 
 that is, to eliminate the present system. 
 
 Senator Geonna. Isn't it true that the real farmers' organizations 
 are opposed to this bill? 
 
 Mr. Du^'EL. No, sir. 
 
 Senator Geonna. Can you name me one farmer's organization that 
 is in favor of it ? I mean grain farmers, those interested in grain. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes, sir ; I can give you that. Now, here are the most 
 recent. 
 
 Senator Reed. I would like to ask a question right there. If this 
 bill is so very popular, backed by everybody and only opposed by 
 about three organizations in the United States, why do you tack it 
 on as a rider to an appropriation bill ? 
 
 Mr. DtrvEL. That is a question that I can not answer. Senator. 
 
 Senator Reed. Somebody will have to answer it. 
 
 Senator Waeeen. Put on on the other side — in the House. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. At a meeting of the Farmers Grain Dealers' Associa- 
 tion of Ohio, held at Toledo March 13, 1916, neai'ly 200 delegates 
 
8 AGKICULTUKE APPROPRIATION BILL, 191T. 
 
 from 65 farmer's eleviitor companies, representing about 15,000 farm- 
 ers in the State of Ohio, adopted the following resolution : 
 
 That inusmucli as the Govei-nnient of the United States has promulgated 
 corn grades and is in-eiiiirinK grades on other grains, we believe the farmers 
 will be benefited by the establishment of uniform grad(-s on all grain, and 
 that we urge all grain biivevs in Ohio to buy on grade; that we urge the pas- 
 sage by both the House and Senate of the I'nited States of House bill No. 
 10405, known as the Uniled States uruin-Krades act, introduced by Congress- 
 man Thomas L. Kubey, of Missouri. 
 
 The C'liATiniAx. Which is this act. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Which is this amendment. 
 
 Senator Gkonna. That is not a farmer's organization. That is 
 an organization composed of men ^vho own and operate elevators, 
 and the name "farmfers" is just nominal. It is not a farmer's 
 organization. 
 
 Mr. Dtj\el. That is as near a farmer's organization as we have in 
 the country. 
 
 Senator Gronxa. Xo; I beg your pardon. Have you heard from 
 the Society of Equity of Xorth Dakota and South Dakota and ^lin- 
 nesota? That is the largest organization in America including 
 farmers. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I cafcl't say just now just what their attitude is. I 
 think their attitude is for Federal inspection. 
 
 Senator Reed. Now. why do you think that? Senator Gronna 
 seems to think the other way. You say you think that. Have you 
 got anything to base that thought on? 
 
 Senator Groxxa. I am a member of the Society of Equity myself, 
 and I can show j'ou my membership certificate. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I don't question that at all. Senator. If there is any 
 farmer in this country that is not in favor of a uniform system of 
 grading, under the control of the Federal Government in some way. 
 I have not met him. 
 
 Senator Reed. That is not the question. I think, Mr. Chairman — 
 I may be trespassing on the patience of the committee, but an asser- 
 tion of that kind, the opinion of this witness, that the Society of 
 Equity, to which Senator Gronna has just referred, has committed 
 itself to this particular bill, amounts to the giving of testimony to 
 that effect. 
 
 Mr. DcvEL. Pardon me. Senator, if I made that statement I did 
 not intend to make it, that they had committed themselves to this 
 particular bill. 
 
 Senator Reed. That was the import of your testimony. It would 
 be so understood. But waiving that, the assertion that they are in 
 fa\or of uniform grades — that you believe them to be — means in 
 effect that you understand that to be the case. Xow, have you had 
 any communication with them? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. No, sir ; I can not say that I have. 
 
 Senator Reed. Well, then, you ought not to express youi-self that 
 way imless you have something to base it on. 
 
 Mr. Brand. If you will allow me, I think I might give some light 
 on that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Loftus, the manager of the Equity 
 Grain Exchange, has frequently expressed himself in favor of Fed- 
 eral inspection, and Mr. Manahan, who was" formerly in the House, 
 has been at my office and has expressed the same interest in Federal 
 
AGRICULTUEE APPEOPEIATION BILL, 1917. 9 
 
 inspection and uniform grades. He may not hare visited Dr. Duvel 
 and expressed that interest to him, but he did in my office. 
 
 Senator Geonna. I have spoken on the same platform with George 
 S. Loftus, and he has condemned this very act. I will say that for 
 the record. 
 
 Mr. Brand. My statement was that he has favored Federal in- 
 spection and uniform grades. I do not know his position on this 
 bill. 
 
 Mr. Dttvel. That was my statement, that they stand for Federal 
 inspection. 
 
 Senator Johnson of South Dakota. There is one thing that I don't 
 quite understand, and that I would like to understand. Suppose a 
 farmer out in the western country loads a carload of wheat — which 
 they often do in our country — at a station where there is no in- 
 spector, and they ship that, for instance, to Minneapolis or any other 
 point. That must necessarily be inspected and graded at its destina- 
 tion, must it not? 
 
 Mr. Du^rEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Johnson of South Dakota. Now, suppose that that farmer 
 objects to the grading. Suppose the elevator in the town where he 
 ships that grain from says to him, " We will give you so much for 
 your wheat and grade it so-and-so." When it gets to its destination 
 the inspector who grades it gives him a different grade — I am only 
 assuming this now for the purpose of getting at the point I want to 
 get at. This return is made and he is not satisfied with his grading. 
 " What recourse has he, if any ? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Under present commercial conditions? 
 
 Senator Johnson of South Daokta. Under the conditions of this 
 bill itself. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Under the conditions of this bill he appeals directly 
 to the Federal Government for a determination of the true grade 
 of the grain. 
 
 Senator Johnson of South Dakota. Now, how long would that 
 probably take him to reach a determination and get the matter set- 
 tled? 
 
 Mr. DtTVEL. The plan as at present proposed is that he shall have 
 his returns made as soon as possible, and ordinarily he would get 
 them the same day. They would handle them with the same facility 
 that they do at the present time. 
 
 Senator Johnson of South Dakota. And would that applj'^ — ^the 
 decision as to the grade of that grain, would that have to go to the 
 department that graded it before? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. The other department, you mean? 
 
 Senator Johnson of South Dakota. Your inspector, your Gov- 
 ernment inspector at this point where the grain is received, grades it. 
 Now, the seller is not satisfied with that grading, but he must accept 
 it, must he not? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Under the provisions of this bill. 
 
 Senator Johnson of South Dakota. Or else appeal. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Under the provisions of this bill the inspection is 
 done by the State or the board of trade inspectors as at present. 
 Those inspectors are merely licensed by the Federal Government for 
 the correct and honest performance of their duties. 
 
/ 
 10 AGKICTJLTTJRE APPBOPRIATION BILL, 191'7. 
 
 Senator Johnson of South Dakota. Now, another question. 1 
 understand that. Can he load that carload of grain and ship that 
 to the same place, Minneapolis, that has an inspector, and sell it 
 on the market without having an inspection ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Under the present conditions he could not ship it to 
 Minneapolis 
 
 Senator Johxson of South Dakota (interposing). But under the 
 conditions that this bill provides for, can he act independently of 
 the inspection if he so desires? 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. The rules of the Minneapolis exchange would pro- 
 hibit it. This law does not undertake to corrfect that; no, sir; nor 
 prescribe what their rules shall be. 
 
 Senator Johnson of South Dakota. There are some things, Mr. 
 Chairman, that I do not fully understand about this bill, and I do 
 not seem to be able to get them in my mind so that I can under- 
 stand them. 
 
 The Chairman. Senator, don't you think it would be better for 
 us all to discuss the situation generally and the background on which 
 it is based and the reasons for the legislation before we take up 
 the bill and scrutinize it? 
 
 Senator Johnson of South Dakota. Very well, that is satisfac- 
 tory to me. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Xow, as to the organizations, I have here a number of 
 resolutions from the different organizations, all of the farmers" co- 
 operative organizations, and farmers' elevator companies, and as T 
 said a moment ago most of them stand for Federal inspection. Here 
 is their state of mind. The Minnesota Farmers Grain Dealers' 
 Association says: 
 
 Wlieiv.is thei'p i-; .' wiile differenoe in the results of grain i!i-;]>ec-tion at 
 different times in eaili year in tlie same market, wiiicli are \infair tn the 
 sliippeis of grain. 
 
 And the shippers in this case, of course, are the producers, be- 
 cause they are farmers' elevator organizations. | Reading:] 
 Therefore be it 
 
 Resolved, Tliat we ask the Federal (lovernnient to establish uniform in- 
 spection for all grains in all markets. 
 
 Senator Brady. AVhere is that from ? 
 
 Mr. Dm-EL. Action taken at a meeting in Minneapolis. Xow, take 
 the South Dakota organizations, the farmers' cooperative associa- 
 tion. They say [reading] : 
 
 ■\Vherea.s conditions siirnmnding the insiiection of grain entering into interstate 
 commerse are open to severe iritioisni on account of the lr<al influence that 
 manifests itself, and the charges of a rigid inspection in, and an easy insjiec- 
 tion out; that in the absence of standard grades, inspection is permitted at 
 any and all grain centers, thereby subjecting shipments to the .iudgnient of 
 different inspectors while in transit from shipper and producer to the seller 
 or consumer. That curs that grade Xo. 1 at one point may grade No. 2 or 
 even No. 3 before reaching destination or at some other point. This has a 
 demoralizing effect on the grain trade and is confusing to the shipper until 
 the shipper Is miable to establish a grade on his shipment with anj- degree 
 of acoiracy ; and 
 
 Whereas a uniform gi'ade established for the entire country and inspeotetl by 
 a board appointed by the Federal Government under civil-service rules 
 would tend to reestablish confidence in the entire grain trade and form a 
 basis upon which to adjust the differences between shipper and seller or 
 buyer; Therefore be it 
 
AGBICULTTJEE APPEOPBIATION BILL, 1917. 11 
 
 Resolved, That a law be enacted by the United States Congress providing 
 for Federal inspection standardization, grading, and weighing of grain enter- 
 ing into interstate commerce and foreign commerce. 
 
 Senator Gkonna. Isn't it true that they are talking about one 
 thing and you are talking about an entirely different thing? They 
 want Federal inspection, and they want to place these P^ederal in- 
 spectors under civil-service rules. Is that what you propose to do 
 in this bill? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. No, sir; I merely mention this to show that the 
 farmers are dissatisfied with present conditions, and that they want 
 some remedy through Federal legislation. 
 
 Senator Reed. Now, who is that by ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. The South Dakota farmers' organization. 
 
 Senator Brady. What is the name of it? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. The South Dakota Farmers' Cooperative Association, 
 
 Senator Bbadt. Where is its headquarters ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. It doesn't state here. 
 
 Senator Brady. I was just asking for information, so I can ask 
 Senator Johnson about it. 
 
 Senator Johnson of South Dakota. I have a letter now written to 
 that organization, and I have been expecting a reply to that letter 
 for the last two days, which I have not yet received, touching that 
 very point. But that does not cover the objection that I raised at 
 all^ — ^that is, as I see it. But we will pass that along. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Now, the Farmers Grain Dealers' Association of In- 
 diana, which is one of the newest organizations, at their meeting only 
 last March 
 
 Senator Eeed (interposing). You say the Grain Dealers' Associa- 
 tion? 
 
 Mr. DtJ-vTEL. No, sir; the Farmers Grain Dealers' Association. 
 
 Senator Reed. . You understand that to be composed of farmers ? 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. In all of these States, you understand, they have a 
 regular grain dealers' association. Indiana has the Indiana Grain 
 Dealers' Association, which is composed of the regular dealers. This 
 is the Farmers Grain "Dealers' Association of Indiana, composed of 
 farmers. 
 
 Senator Reed. Now, are you sure of that ? 
 
 Senator Brady. That is information we ought to have. 
 • Mr. Dtta'el. I will read you from the address of the president of 
 the National Council of the Farmers' Cooperative Companies, as 
 delivered at a joint meeting held with the National Conference of 
 Markets in Chicago last December. This is what he says. This is 
 Mr. H. W. Danforth, president of the National Council of Farmers' ' 
 Cooperative Associations, in his address at the third annual meeting, 
 November 29 to December 2, 1915, of the National Conference on 
 Marketing and Farm Credits, in joint program with the National 
 Council of the National Farmers' Cooperative Associations. He 
 made the following statement relative to grain standardization legis- 
 lation 
 
 Senator Reed (interposing). No, no; I am interested in knowing 
 whether this association, the resolutions of which you have just pre- 
 sented, is an association of farmers or an association of grain dealers. 
 Now, you can hardly settle that by reading from the address of 
 somebody delivered at some other time or place. Do you know ? 
 
12 AGBICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917. 
 
 Mr. DtrvEL. So far as I know, it is composed entirely of farmers. 
 
 Senator Beady. And the actual producers of the grain ? 
 
 Mr. Ddvel. These farmers' elevator organizations operate in this 
 way : A group of farmers get together and form a farmers' coopera- 
 tive elevator, and these various cooperative elevators in the various 
 States have banded themselves together into State farmers' coopera- 
 tive elevator associations. 
 
 The Chairman. As distinguished from the line elevators? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. As distinguished from the line elevators. 
 
 Senator Eeed. As a matter of fact, aren't they controlled by grain 
 dealers and not by farmers ? Do you know that ? 
 
 Mr. Dtt\'el. No, sir; they are not. 
 
 Senator Ghonna. I want to say that they are in my State. In my 
 State, outside of the Society of Equity, the elevators are controlled 
 by the individuals who are in the business for the profit there is in it. 
 They are not on the cooperative basis ; not in my State. 
 
 Senator BRAor. It might be well to finish that quotation. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. He says [reading] : 
 
 The farmers' cooperative elevator comijanies have long demanded the stand- 
 ardization of grades for all the grains and Federal inspection of same. About 
 a year ago corn grades were adopted and standardized by the United States 
 Government, and they have worked a remarkable change In the handling of 
 this commodity. Any manager of a farmers' elevator can readily place a sam- 
 ple of corn in its right grade, with the assurance that if he has done his wojk 
 carefully it will correspqnd with the grading by the inspector at the terminal 
 point. 
 
 Senator Eeed. Will you please tell me the page that you are read- 
 ing from there. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I do not have the page. This is just a memorandum 
 from the report of the National Association on Marketing and Farm 
 Credits. He also stated : 
 
 At the present time there are in Illinois 305 farmers' elevator companies ; in 
 Iowa, 394 ; in Minnesota, 345 ; in South Dakota, 435 ; in Kansas. 242 ; in Ne- 
 braska, 271. The total membership of the seven States is approximately 
 275,000 to 300,000 farmers represented. 
 
 Senator Gronna. You haven't got North Dakota there, have vou, 
 Mr. Duvel? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. No; it is not here. It has been omitted. North Da- 
 kota is not on this list. 
 
 (James E. Boyle, professor of economics. University of Nortli 
 Dakota, in an address before farmers' county institute. Williston, N. 
 Dak., Feb. 10, 1916, gives farmers' elevators of the State as 446.) 
 
 Senator Beady. Is Idaho there ? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. No, sir. In Idaho the association, I understand, is not 
 affiliated with the National Council of Farmers' Cooperative Com- 
 panies. I think they are associated with a branch of the Society of 
 Equity. 
 
 Senator Smith of South Carolina. Mr. Duvel, how many commer- 
 cial grades in wheat are recognized? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. How many commercial grades of wheat ? 
 
 Senator Smith of South Carolina. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. In a single market, or altogether ? 
 
 Senator Smith of South Carolina. I mean, ordinarily, how many 
 grades do you have ? 
 
AGEIOULTUEE APPEOPRIATION BILL, 1917. 18 
 
 Mr. DxTVEL. Ordinarily, take the spring wheat, we have No. 1 
 hard. No. 1 northern, No. 2 northern. No. 3 northern, and No. 4 and 
 sample grade. 
 
 Senator Smith of South Carolina. And what? 
 
 Mr. DxTVEL. And sample grade. That is, anything that is not 
 good enough to grade goes into sample. In most markets there are 
 usually about four or five grades. Take it all over the country I 
 don't know just what the number is now, but I suppose there are 150 
 different grades. Every market has its own different grades, and 
 that is one thing they want to bring about — uniformity of grades. 
 As it is now, a man ships a carload of wheat, and he may get one 
 grade on it at the point of shipment and another grade at the point 
 of destination, because the grade requirements for No. 1 northern, 
 for instance, in Minnesota are not the same as the grade requirements 
 for No. 1 northern in Chicago. Neither are they the same as No. 1 
 northern in St. Louis or any other market. 
 
 Senator Beady. Have you got anything further from the farmers' 
 organizations ? 
 
 The Chairman. Let us get ahead with the farmers' organizations 
 first, since we started that. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I don't know whether it is necessary to go through 
 all these resolutions. 
 
 Senator Beady. I don't think it is necessary to go through all the 
 resolutions, but I think it would be well to either print the whole 
 statement in the record or call off the names of the different associ- 
 ations that have advised you, so that we can refer to them in the 
 future. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I will call off the names of the different organizations 
 who are on record as favoring uniform grades, and want either Fed- 
 eral inspection or Federal supervision. In other words, they want 
 to take this thing out of the hands of the present system of grading 
 and have the Federal Government control it. 
 
 Senator Beady. We would like to have that information. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Here is the Grain Dealers' National Association, 
 which is an association that represents the regular grain dealers. A 
 few farmers' organizations are members of that, but mostly this is 
 regular grain dealers. 
 
 Senator Beady. Would you be kind enough, as you go along, to 
 give us the addresses of the different organizations, if you can ? 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. The Grain Dealers' National Association. The secre- 
 tary is at Toledo. They work in the States, both North and South, 
 and have some members in foreign countries. 
 
 The Ohio Grain Dealers' Association, secretary at Columbus, 
 Ohio. 
 
 Indiana Grain Dealers' Association, secretary at Indianapolis. 
 
 Illinois Grain Dealers' Association, secretary at Champaign, 111. 
 
 Missouri Grain Dealers' Association, Mr. Gunnell is the secretary. 
 I can't give his address just now. 
 
 Michigan Hay and Grain Dealers' Association; I don't know the 
 secretary's address. These secretaries change from time to time and 
 I can't always keep track of the addresses. 
 
 Kansas Grain Dealers' Asociation. Mr. Smiley, of Topeka, Kans., 
 is the secretary. The Kansas Grain Dealers' Association at their 
 
14 AGEICULTUKE APPEOPEIATION BILL, 1917. 
 
 meeting just two weeks ago adopted strong resolutions indorsing the 
 Eubey bill. 
 
 Senator Thompson. Do you know anything about what the 
 Farmers' Union of Kansas did? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I don't believe they have had their meeting this spring. 
 
 Senator Thompson. They are all farmers? That is, a farmers' 
 organization pure and simple? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Then, there is the Texas Grain Dealers' Association; the Western 
 Grain Dealers' Association, which includes parts of Iowa, South 
 Dakota, and Nebraska; the Council of Grain Exchanges — at the 
 time action was taken by the Coimcil of Grain Exchanges there 
 were some dissenting votes, but no roll call was made, so that there is 
 no record to show the exchanges that voted in the negative, but pre- 
 sumably they were the exchanges on the Atlantic seaboard. 
 
 Senator Smith of South Carolina. This committee, of course, is 
 interested in knowing just what are the things •omplained of and 
 the remedy that this bill proposes to apply. Of course, we know the 
 data. Now, what are the things that the farmers are complaining of ? 
 
 The Chairman. Senator Brady has asked for an enumeration of 
 all these concerns. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I have a few more. 
 
 Senator Brady. The list he has is so long that I think it would be 
 unnecessary to take the time now to answer the question fully. 
 Would it not be well, Mr. Chairman, to simply print those names in 
 the record, so that we can get into communication with them ? The 
 reason I do this, so you will understand it, is this: We Senators have 
 become so used to being bombarded with legislation of one kind 
 and another that we feel that if there was any great demand for this 
 we would have heard more from our constituents about it, and I am 
 frank to say that I have not heard enough to suggest— only in a 
 general way — and as to this particular bill I have had very little 
 correspondence relative to it at all, and it rather surprised me, and 
 for that reason I think we should be put in a position where we can 
 get into communication with the farmers' organizations and find out 
 what the real farmers want. 
 
 The Chairman. I think you will find that the different concerns 
 of the country that favor it have investigated it, and talring into 
 account the passage of the bills through the House, you will find 
 that they have probably taken it for granted that it was going to 
 pass. I think you will find that that is probably true. 
 
 Senator Thompson. Who is the author of this particular bill '. 
 
 The Chairman. Congressman Rubey. 
 
 Senator Thompson. This is the same as the Moss bill, is it not I 
 
 The Chairman. It is substantially the same; yes. 
 
 Senator Smith of South Carolina. I would like to change my 
 question now from Mr. Duvel to Senator Groima. I would like to 
 have a clear idea — I want to know just how you sell your wheat by 
 these grades. Do you sell them independently of each grade, each 
 one independently of the other? 
 
 Senator Gronna. Yes; we sell them by grades on the Minneapolis 
 market, through this board of trade. It is sold by grade and sample 
 both. For instance, it might be No. 1 northern. There might be one 
 kind of No. 1 northern that might bring, we will say. 90 cents. 
 
AGKICULTUEE APPEOPKIATION BILL, 1917. 15 
 
 Another sample of No. 1 northern, being better No. 1 northern, 
 might bring 93 cents, or it might bring less than 90 cents. 
 
 Senator Smith of South Carolina. Does each grade stand on its 
 own merit, regardless of other grades? 
 
 Senator Ghonna. Yes. 
 
 Senator Smith of South Carolina. He don't sell No. 1, but he sells 
 the privilege of delivering No. 3, say, and appealing to the secre- 
 tary' to fix the difference, 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes. 
 
 Senator Beady. It is on the same line as grading cotton, only in 
 cotton you start in the middle and go each way, and we start at No. 1. 
 
 Senator Geonna. May I answer that question? If I sell 1,000 
 bushels of No. 1 northern, or instruct my commission man at Min- 
 neapolis to sell for my account a thousand bushels of No. 1 northern, 
 and if 1 ship him the thousand bushels and it turns out to be No. 2, 
 he will immediately buy in another car of No. 1 northern for my 
 account and sell my car for whatever it brings. 
 
 Senator Waeren. It is entirely different from cotton. 
 
 Senator Smith of South Carolina. I see. I wanted to get that 
 idea clear. 
 
 The Chairman. I think, in view of what Senator Brady has said, 
 you had better call off a few more of those organizations. 
 
 Mr. DtrvEL. The fraternity of operative millers; the Millers' Na- 
 tional Federation, with which are affiliated the Central Kentucky 
 Millers' Association. 
 
 The following is a list of the associations or organizations that 
 have declared themselves in favor of uniform standards for the 
 grading of grain to be fixed by the Federal Government and for 
 some Federal legislation that will insure the uniform application of 
 such standards by Federal authority. All of the organizations 
 listed are for uniform grades, although th'ey differ somewhat as to 
 their method of enforcement. The majority of the organizations 
 favor Federal supervision, as provided for in the grain-grades bill 
 now under consideration as amendment to the Agricultural appro- 
 prlfction bill, although some of the organizations, especially the ma- 
 jority of the farmers' organizations, desire more drastic legislation 
 in that they wish to have the boards of trade and State inspection 
 departments eliminated and the entire system of inspection and 
 grading taken over by the Federal Government [reading] : 
 
 National Council of Farmers' Cooperative Associations, H. W. Danforth, 
 president, Washington, 111. 
 
 National Association of Managers of Farmers' Cooperative Companies, I. S. 
 Henjum, secretary, Hartford, S. Dak. 
 
 National Farmers' Association. 
 
 Minnesota Farmers Grain Dealers' Association, A. F. Nelson, secretary, 
 Benson, Minn. 
 
 North Dakota Farmers Grain Dealers' Association, M. O. Gaulke, secretary, 
 Grand Forks, N. Dak. 
 
 Iowa Farmers Grain Dealers* Association, Frank M. Myers, secretary, Fort 
 Dodge, Iowa. 
 
 Nebraska Farmers Cooperative Grain and Live Stock Shipping Association, 
 J. W. ShorthlU, secretary, Hampton, Nebr. 
 
 Illinois Farmers Grain Dealers' Association, A. N. Steinhart, secretary, 
 Bloomington, 111. 
 
 South Dakota Farmers' Cooperative Associations, J. T. Belk, secretary, 
 Henry, S. Dak. 
 
16 AGBICULTUEE APPBOPEIATION BILL, 1911. 
 
 Kansas Farmers Grain Dealers' Association, T. L. Daniels, secretary, Culli- 
 son, Kans. 
 
 Ohio Farmers Grain Dealers' Association, Fred TJler, secretary, McClure, 
 Ohio. 
 
 Indiana Farmers Grain Dealers' Association, E. G. McCullom, secretary, Wol- 
 cott, Ind. 
 American Society of Equity," H. O. Mahoney, president, Viroqua, Wis. 
 Grain Dealers' National Association, Charles Quinn, secretary, 'Toledo, Ohio. 
 Ohio Grain Dealers' Association, J. W. McCord, secretary, Columbus, Ohio. 
 Indiana Grain Dealers' Association, Charles B. Riley, secretary, Indian- 
 apolis, Ind. 
 Illinois Grain Dealers' Association, E. B. Hitchcocli, secretary, Decatur, 111. 
 
 Missouri Grain Dealers' Association, J. A. Gunnell, secretary, Mexico, Mo. 
 Michigan Hay and Grain Dealers' Association, E. L. Wellman, president. 
 Grand Rapids, Mich. 
 Kansas Grain Dealers' Association, E. J. Smiley, secretary, Topeka, Kans. 
 
 Texas Grain Dealers' Association, H. B. Dorsey, secretary. Fort Worth, Tex. 
 
 Western Grain Dealers' Association, George A. Wells, secretarjj, Des Moines, 
 Iowa. (This association includes the regular grain dealers of the States of 
 Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota.) 
 
 Council of Grain Exchanges, J. Ralph Pickell, secretary, Chicago, 111. At the 
 time action was taken by the Council of Grain Exchanges there were some dis- 
 senting votes, but a rising vote was not called for, so there is no record of the 
 exchanges or boards of trade opposed to the legislation, although generally con- 
 ceded as being confined to those of the Atlantic seaboard, as practically all of 
 the other exchanges have taken action favoring standardization and supervi- 
 sion. The only grain exchanges now opposing this legislation, as shown in the 
 hearings before the Senate and House committees, or in the other available 
 records, are the New York Produce Exchange, the Philadelphia Commercial Ex- 
 change, and the Baltimore Chamber of Commerce. 
 
 Fraternity of Operative Millers, John A. Wells, secretary. West Salem, Ohio. 
 
 Millers' National Federation, A. P. Husband, secretary. Royal Insurance 
 Building, Chicago, 111. Ex officio : Central Kentucky Millers' Association, In- 
 diana Millers' Association, Kansas City Millers' Club, Michigan State Millers' 
 Association, Millers' Club of Minneapolis, Ohio Millers' State Association, St. 
 Louis Millers' Club, Southeastern Millers' Association, Southern Illinois Millers' 
 Association, Southwestern Millers' League, Southwestern Missouri Millers' 
 Club, and Wisconsin State Millers' Association. 
 
 American Feed Manufacturers' Association, L. F. Brown, secretary, Milwau- 
 kee, Wis. 
 
 Corn Millers' Infiu'mation Bureau, J. B. McLemore, seci-etary, Nashville, 
 Tenn. 
 
 Xew York State Millers' Association, W. V. Hamilton, president, Buffalo, 
 N. Y. 
 
 Jliami ^'alley Grain Dealers' Association, E. T. Custenborder, secretary, Sid- 
 ney, Ohio. 
 
 Tri-State Grain Dealers' Association comprises the Northwestern Ohio Grain 
 Dealers' Association, Northeastern Indiana Grain Dealers' Association; South- 
 eastern Michigan Grain Dealers' Association, now known as the Grain Pro- 
 ducers and Dealers' Association, T. P. Riddle, secretary, Lima, Ohio. 
 
 Boston Chamber of Commerce, James A. McKibben, secretary, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Buffalo Corn Exchange, Fred E. Pond, secretary, Buffalo, N. Y. 
 
 Chicago Board of Trade, J. 0. F. Merrill, secretary, Chicago, 111. 
 
 Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, W. C. Culkins, executive secretary, Cin- 
 cinnati, Ohio. 
 
 Duluth Board of Trade, Charles F. MacDonald, secretary, Duluth, Minn. 
 
 Indianapolis Board of trade, William H. Howard, secretary, Indianapolis, Ind. 
 
 Kansas City Board of Trade, E. D. Bigelow, secretary, Kansas City, Mo. 
 
 Kansas City Millers' Club, R. E. Sterling, secretary, Kansas City, Mo. 
 
 Louisville Board of Trade, James F. Buckner, superintendent aind secretary, 
 Louisville, Ky. 
 
 Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce, H. A. Plumb, secretary, Milwaukee, Wis. 
 
 Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, J. G. McHugh, secretary, Minneapolis, 
 Minn. 
 
 1 Not Included in the list originally submitted. The following resolution unanimously 
 adopted at their national convention In December, 1915, clearly sets forth their position : 
 
 " We recommend the enactment of Federal legislation which will provide for a system 
 of Federal inspection and standardization and grading of grain." 
 
AGRICULTUBE APPEOPEIATION BILL, 1917. 17 
 
 Minneapolis Grain Commission Mercliaiits' Association, W. O. Timerman, 
 president, Minneapolis, Minn, (composed of 44 Minneapolis Cliamber of Com- 
 merce firms). 
 
 New Orleans Board of Trade, H. S. Herring, secretary. New Orleans, La. 
 
 Norfolk Chamber of Commerce, W. A. Cox, secretary, Norfolk, Va. 
 
 Omaha Grain Eixchange, Frank Manchester, secretary, Omaha, Nebr. 
 
 Providence Chamber of Commerce, Clarence A. Cotton, general secretary, 
 Providence, R. I. 
 
 St. Louis Merchants' Exchange, Eugene Smith, secretary, St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 Toledo Produce Exchange, Archibald Gassaway, secretary, Toledo ,<)hio. 
 
 Senator Brady. You say that all of those associations have gone 
 on record as at least favoring a standard grading of grain ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. They favor standardization of grades, under some 
 kind of Federal control, either out-and-out Federal inspection or 
 Federl supervision. 
 
 Sentor Beady. Well, have any of them addressed you relative to 
 this particular bill ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes, sir. You will find a great many of them that are 
 in favor of this particular bill. 
 
 Senator Eked. Now, may I ask this question : When was this bill 
 introduced and adopted as a rider? 
 
 Mr. DtJ-STEL. As a rider ? 
 
 Senator Reed. Yes. 
 
 Mr. DtrvEL. I could not say that exactly. 
 
 The Chairman. I guess it was in April, some time. 
 
 Senator Reed. When was it introduced before it was added as a 
 rider ? Was it introduced independently of this Agricultural appro- 
 priation bill ? 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Reed. Who sent it out to these associations ? 
 
 Mr. DiTVEii. Who sent it out ? 
 
 Senator Reed. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. Well, I suppose it got out through the trade papers. 
 This legislation — all of this proposed legislation is legislation that 
 the trade has been very closely in touch with. 
 
 Senator Reed. Do you know of anybody that has sent this bill out? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I suppose probably it has been mostly sent out by the 
 authors of the bill and through the trade papers, agricultural press, 
 ptc 
 
 The Chairman. I know we have had a great number of inquiries 
 from these organizations for copies of the bill. 
 
 Senator Page. Did you ever send any out? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes, sir ; if Ave happened to have extra copies we would 
 send them, but as a rule we refer them to the authors of the bill. 
 
 Senator Reed. How many have you sent out from the Agriculture 
 Department? . 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. Well, I could not say that. I do not believe it would 
 be over a couple of dozen. 
 
 Senator Reed. Have you had any correspondence with these wheat 
 organizations, or any of them, with reference to this bill ? 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. We have had some correspondence ; yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Reed. Running over a good period of time, has it not? 
 
 Mr Dtjvel. In fact, we have had correspondence with the asso- 
 ciations; yes, sir; for a number of years; ever since this question was 
 first agitated. 
 
 46655— c— 16 2 
 
18 AGBIOULTUEE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917. 
 
 Senator Eeed. The Agricultural Department has been pretty- 
 actively engaged in the proiDaganda for this bill, hasn't it ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Our attitude in regard to this bill is exactly this : We 
 have investigated the situation, and we find that there is need for 
 Federal regulation and a demand for it. Now, whether this par- 
 ticular bill is the one that should be enacted or whether it should 
 be some other legislation is something that rests entirely with 
 Congress. 
 
 Senator Eeed. Haven't you been pretty actively engaged in stir- 
 ring up this interest that you speak oti 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Xo, sir ; I do not think I can say that. 
 
 Senator Reed. Hasn't there been a good deal done on that line 
 out from the Agricultural Department by correspondence and other- 
 wise ? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Only that we have tried to give the people interested 
 the information that they wanted. 
 
 Senator Eeed. You never write except when you are written to? 
 
 Mr. Dm'EL. I would not say that: no, sir. 
 
 Senator Reed. The fact of the matter is that the principal interest 
 in this bill is right down here at the Agricultural Department, 
 isn't it? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Xo, sir. 
 
 Senator Reed. That is the real dj'namo that has been driving this 
 measure, isn't it? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Xo. sir; I think not. 
 
 Senator Reed. And don't you know of efforts being made to have 
 Members of Congress written to and telegraphed to in behalf of 
 this bill? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Of efforts being made on the part of the department? 
 
 Senator Reed. Read the question. 
 
 (The reporter read the question as follows:) 
 
 Senator Ui:i;ii. And (icm't ymi know of effurts being made to have Members 
 of Cont;icss written to and telt'iiraiilwd to in lirhalf of this bill? 
 
 jSIr. Duvel. I say that that situation has been up ever since the 
 question of this proposed legislation has been up for consideration 
 in recent sessions of Congress. All of these organizations, I think, 
 have been active along that line and taking this view of the situation: 
 That the Members of Congress want to know their ^-iews upon this 
 matter. 
 
 Senator Reed. Xow, just tell us what you know about that. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. 'SXeW, I thinlt that is about as much as I Icnow. 
 
 Senator Reed. Haven't you talked with different men connected 
 witli tlicse organizations at all — communicated with them ? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Whenever the opportunity presents itself; yes, sir. 
 I have discussed the matter with them because it is one of the things 
 in wliich they are Aory much interested. 
 
 Senulor Reed. Haven't you said to them that they ought to get 
 busy, and, in substance and in fact, they ought to get busy and see 
 that proper resolutions were passed and that proper communications 
 were sent to Congress? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. So far as resolutions are concerned 
 
 Senator Reed (interposing) . I did not say resolutions. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Well, just what was your question ? 
 
 Senator Reed. Read the question. 
 
AGBICULTUEE APPEOPKIATION BILL, l&ll. 19 
 
 (The reporter read the question, as follows:) 
 
 Senator Rekd. Haven't you said to them that they ought to get busy, and in 
 substance and in fact, they ouglit to get busy and see that proper resolutions 
 were passed and proper communications sent to Congress? 
 
 Senator Eeed. I mean I did not say resolutions alone. 
 
 Mr. DtJVEL. This has been my situation so far as I am concerned : 
 That when we have had inquiries about it, or when the matter was 
 discussed, that the opposition — what little opposition there is to this 
 measure — was very active, and that if they wanted their side pre- 
 sented they should likewise take such action as they thought* best. 
 
 Senator Keed. In other words, you have said to a man that the 
 opposition to this legislation was active, and that they had better get 
 busy if they wanted the bill passed ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes, sir ; I think so. 
 
 Senator Reed. Now, how long have you been saying that? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Well, I have been making no special efforts 
 
 Senator Reed (interposing) . No ; not special, but the general, regu- 
 lar effort, consistent and persistent effort; how long has that been 
 going on ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I might say at various times, in discussing these ques- 
 tions when we would be out, when we would come in contact with 
 men 
 
 Senator Reed. "What were you going to say about " be out " ? 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. When we are out on field work and discussing these 
 questions. 
 
 Senator Reed. You do -go out on field work? 
 
 Mr. Dttvel. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Reed. And when you come in contact with these people 
 you hold up to them the beauties of national inspection, explain to 
 them that national inspection would be a good thing, and tell them 
 to get busy ? 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. Not particularly. I think the statements we make in 
 that connection are public statements. Our attitude on that matter, 
 I think, is very well outlined in the addresses we have given. 
 
 Senator Reed. That is it; you go out and make speeches for this 
 thing don't you — this plan I am speaking of ? You go out and advo- 
 cate it in speeches? You call them public addresses, and I will accept 
 that term. 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. Our attitude is this: That the conditions are unsatis- 
 factory. 
 
 Senator Reed. You do go out and make speeches in favor of Fed- 
 eral inspection, don't you? 
 
 iv. 1j. iNo, sir. 
 
 Senator Reed. That is just what you said. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. No, sir. 
 
 Senator Reed. And in favor of Government grades, and that there 
 ought to be such things as that established. 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. Let me answer the question in my own way. 
 
 Senator Reed. I would rather have you answer it in my way — yes 
 or no. It is very plain you either do or do not do it. 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. Our attitude is that existing conditions are unsatis- 
 factory, and the only way that they can be remedied is through 
 Fedei-al legislation. 
 
20 AGBICULTITBE APPEOPKIATION BILL, li>17. 
 
 Senator Eeed. Now, you have said that in numerous public ad- 
 dresses, have you ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Eeed. Now, who else besides yourself goes out and makes 
 these speeches? 
 
 Mr. DtJVEL. Well, I think practically on the grain side, on this 
 phase of it, they would mostly be in our office. 
 
 Senator Eeed. How many men are there ? 
 
 The Chairman. Congressman Eubey is here and has advised me 
 that he has to go back to the House and wishes to make a short state- 
 ment, about two or three minutes. 
 
 Congressman Eubey. I do not care at present to take up the time 
 of the committee — I would like to take up the time of the committee, 
 but I can not do it now. The House is considering the shipping bill, 
 voting on amendments almost every 5 or 10 minutes, and it is abso- 
 lutely necessary for me to be there. But before the committee acts 
 on this proposition providing for Federal supervision in the grading 
 of grain I would like to be heard, and I will be here in the morning 
 if you have a meeting of the committee, and I would like to be heard 
 in favor of the pending proposition which is before the committee. 
 
 The Chairmax. You introduced the bill in the House? 
 
 Congressman Etbey. Yes, sir ; and I am exceedingly sorry that I 
 can not be here while the examination is going on and while these 
 witnesses are here this afternoon, but it is impossible for me to be 
 here, and I wanted to put that before the committee and ask the 
 privilege of appearing before the committee before they take final 
 action on this particular measure. 
 
 The Chaiemax. We will try to arrange it so. Congressman. I do 
 not know just when we will get at it, but we want to speed this just 
 as much as we can. 
 
 Congressman Etjbey. I do not want to delay it. I can be here in 
 the morning. 
 
 The Chairman. We may have a meeting in the morning, and of 
 course, if we do, we will be very much pleased to have you here. I am 
 sorry you can not stay now. 
 
 Mr. Etjbey. I would like to, but imder the circumstances it is abso- 
 lutely impossible for me to stay now. 
 
 Senator Eeed. I was asking how many men there are in your de- 
 partment who are engaged in the work of going out and making 
 speeches to farmers and farmers' organizations? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Well, I think most of that I have done myself. 
 
 Senator Eeed. You say most of it? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Once in a while some of the men in the field labora- 
 tories have delivered addresses at some of these meetings, at the re- 
 quest of the various associations. These addresses, I might add. are 
 always made at the request of the associations to present various 
 phases of the subject. 
 
 Senator Eeed. Oh, yes; and I still have not gotten am- light on 
 how many men go out from time to time to deliver these addresses 
 or lectures. 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. Well, from my office I should say not over half a dozen. 
 
 Senator Eeed. Now, what other offices are there that they go out 
 from, besides yours? 
 
AGEICULTURE APPEOPEIATIOW BILL, 1917. 21 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Of course, that is from the department. They go from 
 all the offices, but I can not say whether any of the men from Mr. 
 Brand's office have discussed this phase of it or not. 
 
 Mr. Brand. I do not think you could discuss grain marketing 
 without discussing the grading phases of it. I think you would have 
 to sew up your mouth and turn tail and run. 
 
 Senator Reed. You have volunteered this statement. Now, let me 
 ask you a question. 
 
 Mr. Brand. Very well. 
 
 Senator Eeed. How many men are there in your department — 
 what is your department ? 
 
 Mr. Brand. The Office of Markets and Rural Organizations. 
 
 Senator Reed. How many men in your department go out and 
 make speeches? 
 
 Mr. Brand. Upon occasion almost any of our investigators make 
 addresses on subjects connected with their work. 
 
 Senator Reed. I am asking for information. I don't know how 
 many you have. 
 
 Mr. Brand. There is a total of 300 persons, roughly, employed in 
 my office. Of the number I should say about 125 are engaged in 
 investigational work, any one of whom might be called upon if he was 
 competent or had the time, or any interest or branch of the trade 
 that we are connected with should desire an address, and it could be 
 done without undue expense. We would be very likely to have any 
 of them make an address on the subject. 
 
 Senator Reed. Now, then, as a matter of fact, the whole 125 men 
 do, from time to time, deliver these addresses? 
 
 Mr. Brand. Well, when you say " from time to time " you ought 
 to say " occasionally." 
 
 Senator Reed. All right. 
 
 Mr. Brand. And in connection with their work. 
 
 Senator Reed. I am not criticizing the fact that they deliver them. 
 I am just trying to find out how many there are. 
 
 Mr. Brand. Just now we are sending out a man to Senator Brady's 
 State, and to Washington and Oregon, in connection with their fruit 
 marketing. 
 
 Senator Reed. Without detail? 
 
 Mr. Brand. Yes. 
 
 Senator Reed. You have 125 men who are engaged in field work, 
 any one of whom occasionally, speaking broadly, deliA^ers addresses? 
 
 Mr. Brand, Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Reed. And it is your opinion that no one of them can 
 deliver addresses upon the grain situation without touching upon the 
 subject matter of this legislation? 
 
 Mr. Brand. With respect to grain ; I did not speak with reference 
 to the 125. We have four men engaged solely upon the phases of 
 grain marketing. They would be the only ones who would make any 
 statements about grain. The others work on fruits and vegetables, 
 wool, live stock, and every other product. 
 
 Senator Reed. They, then, would not discuss this bill ? 
 
 Mr. Brand. They would not discuss this bill. 
 
 Senator Reed. You have four of them out most of the time ? 
 
 Mr. Brand. They are engaged in investigational work all the time. 
 
 Senator Reed. Do they make a good many speeches ? 
 
22 AGRIOULTUEE APPEOPRIATION BILL, lail. 
 
 Mr. Brand. Very few. 
 
 Senator Eeed. Do they travel in many States ? 
 
 Mr. Brand. They travel considerably, as is necessary and natural. 
 
 Senator Eeed. Now, that is your department. What other depart- 
 ments are there that have lecturers out? 
 
 Mr. Brand. We have no lecturers. 
 
 Penator Eeed. Well, men who deliver speeches. I don't want to 
 be technical with you, but I want to get to the point. I am not try- 
 ing to be absolutely technical. 
 
 Mr. Brand. If I knew just what the point was. 
 
 Senator Eeed. The point that I want to get at is. How many men 
 in the Agriculture Department, from time to time or upon occasion, 
 go out and make speeches in regard to the shipment of grain ? 
 
 Mr. Brand. I should say all men who are engaged in grain work 
 in an investigational capacity who are qualified because of their spe- 
 cial knowledge with reference to the subject. 
 
 Senator Eeed. How many of that class of men are there? 
 
 Mr. Brand. I could not tell you that. 
 
 Senator. Eeed. Can you approximate it? 
 
 Mr. Brand. I could not tell you even approximately ; but if I were 
 to hazard a guess T would say. perhaps, 25. 
 
 Senator Eeed. You would say 25. Very well. 
 
 The Chairman. How long has this agitation been going on now, 
 Mr. Duvel? 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. This agitation, I think, has been going on for some 
 10 or 15 years. 
 
 The CiiAiRriiAN. I remember a meeting here in Washington about 
 six or seven years ago nf a number of associations. Do you have 
 that in mind? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I think 23 of them met here at one time on this same 
 matter. 
 
 The Chairman. I remember they adopted resolutions recommend- 
 ing legislation. 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. I do not recall that; no, sir. 
 
 Senator Eeed. Now, if Senator Gore will pardon me, I have just 
 about one or two more questions to ask on this line. 
 
 How many men have you communicated with with reference to this 
 bill, and stated to them in substance and effect that they ought to 
 begin to exert their influence in favor of its passage ? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Well, I could not answer that definitely, because, as I 
 said before, as I ha^e seen these men that are interested — ^they come 
 in here to Washington and come into my office from time to time and 
 want to know what the chances are for legislation, saying that they 
 are tired of the present conditions and that they want some imiform 
 grades, and T usually say that if they want such legislation that such 
 bills are pending and all they need to do is to make their wants known 
 to their Eepresentatives here in Congress. And that might be 50 or it 
 might be 100. 
 
 Senator Eeed. Did you ever suggest to them the advisability of 
 sending telegrams and letters to Members of Congress? 
 
 Mr. Ditvel. Well, if it happened to be at a time when it was a 
 question of immediate action, if they were in and wanted to telegraph, 
 I would say, "Yes; you had better telegraph or go and see your 
 Congressman." 
 
AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917. 23 
 
 Senator Eeed. Now, what did you have to do with preparing tliis 
 bill? I don't mean the particular bill that may be introduced, the 
 Rubey bill, but this bill or its predecessors along this line of legis- 
 lation. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. The first bill as introduced at the last session of Con- 
 gress was prepared by a committee in the department appointed by 
 the Secretary to draft a preliminary outline of the bill along the 
 lines that the department thought would be carried out to the best 
 advantage of our producers and for the interests of our consumers, 
 and to insure honest, fair, and straight dealing, and to eliminate 
 unjust competition in the trade. 
 
 Senator Geonna. Will you pardon me just a moment? Before 
 you leave this subject I want to say something. 
 
 Senator Reed. When you found there was opposition to this bill 
 the other day, Dr. Duvel, did you telegraph or inform Mr. Lingham 
 that there was opposition to the bill? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. No, sir; Mr. Lingham is not here in response to my 
 request at all. 
 
 Senator Thompson. Let me ask you what is this opposition? What 
 class of people do you find are opposed to the bill ? Are they boards 
 of trade, or what are they? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Primarily it is the exporters. 
 
 Senator Thompson. The speculators on the board of trade? 
 
 Mr. Dlwel. No, sir ; the boards of trade, with the exception of the 
 exporters, are taking this position on this bill, and the situation in 
 this entire measure summed up in a nutshell is this : That this bill — 
 take the Millers' National Federation, for instance, they are really on 
 record as in favor of Federal inspection, but they have adopted this 
 as a compromise measure. The grain dealers, boards of trade, and 
 other similar organizations are in favor of supervision, and the farm- 
 ers' organizations have stood for Federal inspection. Their attitude 
 perhaps on this particular bill, at least some of them, is that the 
 boards of trade have favored the bill, and some of the farmers there- 
 fore feel that there is a nigger in the woodpile somewhere, but I have 
 never yet found anyone who has been able to point it out to me. 
 
 Senator Reed. The boards of trade, which we generally call the 
 grain dealers — and sometimes they are grain speculators — they have 
 been p"retty generally in favor of Government inspection, have they ? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. The boards of trade? 
 
 Senator Reed. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. I should say they are about equally divided on the 
 proposition. 
 
 The Chairman. You mean between inspection and supervision? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Between inspection and supervision, yes. 
 
 Senator Reed. What do you draAV as the line between inspection 
 and supervision? 
 
 Mr. DLmBL. Inspection is where the entire inspection work, in- 
 cluding the inspection force, is taken over by the Federal Govern- 
 ment in every respect, which would include inspection as against su- 
 pervision. Now, here is the difference between these two bills. 
 
 Senator Reed. What do you understand by supervision? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Supervision, as provided for in this bill, requires that 
 the inspectors shall be licensed. They will be State employees, State 
 inspectors employed for inspection as they are at the present time, or 
 
24 AGKICULTUEE APPEOPEIATION BILL, 1917. 
 
 board of trade inspectors employed in the inspection, and the onlv 
 requiiement under this bill is that they shall be licensed by the Fed- 
 eral Government, and they retain that license as long as they con- 
 tinue to grade in accordance with the uniform rules as laid down by 
 the Federal Government. 
 
 Seniitor Reed. Do you understand that under this bill a board of 
 trade could name inspectors, and then the Government would license 
 them, even where there was a State inspection law ? 
 
 Mr. DcvEL. No, sir; this will not interfere with the State in- 
 spectors in the least. 
 
 Senator Reed. Not in the least? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. And that is the reason that the department has taken 
 this attitude. We believe that the State inspectors, in States having 
 State inspection departments, will be the least interfered with under 
 this bill of any legislation that can be enacted to provide for uni- 
 form grades. 
 
 Senator Eeed. You say that about half of the boards of trade are 
 in favor of complete Government inspection and supervision, and 
 that one-half are simply in favor of supervision? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. That was the original stand. At the present time I 
 think those formerly favoring Federal inspection have the feeling 
 that Federal inspection out and out is an impossibility, so that they 
 have indorsed this particular measure, or a measure in substance the 
 same as this, as a compromise. 
 
 Senator Reed. You mean they have indorsed the idea of Federal 
 supervision without saying they have indorsed this bill, because, I 
 suppose, to state it fairly, you would not want the committee to un- 
 derstand that they had been studj'ing this bill, very many of them? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Reed. Now, we have spoken of boards of trade. How is 
 it with the millers' association? Are they all in favor of inspection 
 and supervision, or which are they in favor of ? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. The millers, until they had a strong feeling that it 
 Avas impossible to secure Federal inspection, were in favor of Federal 
 inspection, and they have accepted this supervision as a compromise 
 measure. That is their position exactly. 
 
 Senator Reed. Now, coming to the farmers, the real sure-enough 
 grain dealers, how many of them have you heard from directly? I 
 mean farmers now, not associations, not elevator companies, or things 
 of that kind. 
 
 Mr. Dl\ EI,. "Well, we have had letters from a good many farmere. 
 I could not say how many. Of course, my correspondence, so far as 
 my office is concerned, gets more into the actual grain handling and 
 grading pro\ isions rather than in touch with the individual farmers. 
 
 Senator Reed. Yes; I thought so. Have you had a letter from a 
 single farmer in tlie State of Missouri protesting against the grading 
 that has been done l)y the State board or by the State grain and 
 warehouse inspectors? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Well, I could not say offhand that I have. 
 
 Senator Reed. 1\;\vq you received any complaints from the farmers 
 of the great State of Kansas, that markets most of its grain at Kansas 
 City, against the State inspection that takes place tliere under the 
 supervision of the State grain inspectors ? 
 
AGKICULTUKE APPEOPEIATION BILL, 1917. 25 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Well, I do not know. The only way I could find that 
 out would be to go through all of our files. 
 
 Senator Reed. Do you happen to know, in your experience, of this 
 fact, that a lot of dealers upon the board of trade in Kansas City, 
 started a warfare upon the State grain inspection department because 
 its inspection was too rigid ; and that they had been back of numer- 
 ous alleged protests on behalf of alleged organizations against State 
 inspection ? Do you happen to know of that ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. No, sir. 
 
 Senator Eeed. Do you understand that this bill — is it the purpose, 
 as you understand it, of this bill — as you are one of the authors — to 
 leave absolutely in the hands of the State grain-inspection depart- 
 ment the complete inspection of grain, except that they shall in- 
 spect according to standards fixed by the Government, and that the 
 Government shall issue licenses to the various employees of the State 
 grain department? Do you understand that to be the purpose of 
 the bill? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. That is my understanding of it. 
 
 Senator Eeed. You would not object to any provision going into 
 this bill that would make that perfectly plain, if it is not plain now ? 
 
 Mr. DtJVEL. I think it is absolutely plain now. 
 
 Senator Eeed. There is one other point that might come in here. 
 Appeals that are made, are made to the Federal Government. Well, 
 the Federal Government would mean in a practical sense some Fed- 
 eral inspector appointed by the Government. 
 
 Mr. DtJVEL. Some Federal supervisor appointed by the Federal 
 Government under civil service, stationed in the State of Missouri, 
 at St. Louis and such other points where they have State inspectors. 
 
 Senator Reed. Then it would mean this, that if an inspector ap- 
 pointed by the State inspector was to inspect a car of grain and a 
 dispute arose about it, and an appeal went from that man to the 
 State grain inspector, a man selected by the State, that his decision 
 would amoimt to nothing. It would be settled by this one man sent 
 down there by the Agriculture Department. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Probably it would be necessary to have more than 
 one man. 
 
 Senator Eeed. Well, one or two men, or three men, whatever you 
 have. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. That is only interstate grain. It would have no effect, 
 of course, on intrastate grain. 
 
 Senator Eeed. Then that would practically wipe out the whole 
 authority of the State grain inspector, would it ? 
 
 Mr. DtJVEL. Not as we see it. 
 
 Senator Eeed. If he could not decide anything; and your civil- 
 service man, who probably would not know wheat from buckwheat, 
 according to the ordinary civil-service results, could absolutely over- 
 rule the man selected by the votes of the people of the State of 
 Missouri, or appointed by the governor. 
 
 Mr. DtJVEL. Well, Senator, I do not think it is hardly fair to say 
 that the Secretary of Agricvilture would appoint a man to supervise 
 and act on these appeals who did not know and was not thoroughly 
 competent in every respect to inspect grain. 
 
 Senator Eeed. Oh, I don't know about that. 
 
26 AGRICXJLTUEE APPROPBIATION BILL^ 191*7. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, Doctor, let me say this. I think this point 
 ought to be brought out here, so far as intrastate inspection and 
 supervision are concerned, this act Avould not interfere at all with the 
 finality of the State inspector's decision. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. This act does not touch that phase of it at all. 
 
 The Chairman. It is only in cases of appeal as to interstate in- 
 spection, or grain designed for interstate shipment. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. To which the Federal inspector would have 
 supervision ? 
 
 Mr. DtrvEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Eebd. It applies — in other words, you can not overrule 
 the Constitution of the United States, but it does apply, does it 
 not. to every bit of grain that crosses a State line. 
 
 Mr. Du^^EL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Eeed. It would apply even to a farmer's load of wheat 
 that started from the Sfate of Kansas and was taken across the 
 State line to be sold in the State of Missouri, would it not? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. That is, if he wanted to sell it by grades. It provides 
 these two provisions: For an appeal at the point of inspection, so 
 that a man can ship to a point where there is an inspector ; or he can 
 ship from a point where there is no inspection, through a point 
 where there is inspection, to a destination where there is no inspec- 
 tion. For example, he can ship from some country point in Indiana 
 to some country point in Massachusetts, subject to inspection at 
 BuiFalo. as they do now. Or he can ship across the State line from 
 a point where there is no inspection to a point where there is no 
 inspection, Avhich covers about 30 per cent of our grain transactions, 
 and if there is a dispute between buyer and seller, then they have 
 SO!!'* disinterested party to which they can refer that dispute for 
 settlement. If there is no dispute, it remains simply a transaction 
 between two individuals, and the Government takes no action 
 wliatever. 
 
 Senator Eeed. But if a farmer in the State of Kansas was to sell 
 to a man in the State of Missouri, in Kansas City, a load of wheat 
 as No. 1 northern, he would have to have that wheat inspected or 
 he would violate the law, wouldn't he, if he hauled it or shipped 
 it across the line? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. No. sir. 
 
 Senator Eeed. Well, what do you malve out of this language : 
 
 And -whenever stnndnrds sliuU have been fixed and established under this 
 act for any grain no iii'ison tlierenfter shall ship or deliver for s'lipuient from 
 one State. Territory, or IVistru't to or tlirougii any other State, Territory, or 
 District, or to any fori'iirn country, any such srain which is sold or offered 
 for sale 1\\' srade unless the grain shall have been inspected and gradetl by 
 an inspetor |ii-(>nsed under this act. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. If the language stopped at that point and was not 
 covered by provisos, your, first conclusion \vould be correct, that he 
 would have to have it inspected. But the situation is taken care of 
 by about throe special provisos. 
 
 Senator Eeed. Those things are matters that the committee will 
 haA-e to thrash out, of course. 
 
 No^^^ tliere is one other thing that I want to ask you about. Will 
 you kindly turn back in yotu' manuscript to that speech that a 
 
AGEIGXJLTTJEE APPEOPBIATION BILL, 1917. 27 
 
 gentleman was making in regard to corn grades, and I asked you 
 the page at the time. 
 
 Mr. DrrvEL. That was in reference to Mr. Danforth. 
 
 Senator Reed. I don't remember the name, but you remember I 
 asked you about it and asked if you could not give me the page. 
 
 Senator Brady. That is the paragraph that you had before you, 
 Dr. Duvel. 
 
 Senator Reed. Could I see that document? I can tell you in a 
 moment. 
 
 (Mr. Duvel handed papers to Senator Reed.) 
 
 Now, the Agricultural Department some two or three years ago 
 did establish standards for corn. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Reed. Did they do that under law, or did they do it on 
 their own motion? 
 
 Mr. DtJVEL. It was done under this proposition. The clause under 
 which we worked and carried on these investigations provides for 
 investigating the handling, grading, and transportation of grain and 
 to fix grades. Those grades, you understand, are purely permissive. 
 They amount to nothing, so far as present actual conditions are con- 
 cerned to-day, except as a recommendation. 
 
 Senator Reed. Now, then, that is what I want to get at. They had 
 the privilege to recommend grades, and you did recommend grades in 
 corn. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Reed. You established what the condition of corn must 
 be — so much moisture and that it should be clean, and various other 
 conditions that you attached; and you promulgated through the 
 country those regulations, which were not binding in laAv but \^ere 
 persuasive. You promulgated them? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Yes, sir ; we recommended those. 
 
 Senator Reed. Now, do you agree with what this gentleman, Mr. 
 Danforth, said? You read the statement that he made, coming from 
 the farmers' cooperative associations. Do you agree with his state- 
 ment? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. What phase of it ? 
 
 Senator Reed. Well, you read it to the committee, this quoted 
 clause in here. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. I think that is a fair statement ; yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Reed. Now, I want to call the committee's attention very 
 earnestly to this : The witness testifies that he agrees to this language, 
 and he testifies that the only power the Agriculture Department had 
 was under the clause of a bill authorizing it to promulgate standards 
 for grain and corn, and they did promulgate a standard for corn, 
 which was not legally binding but merely persuasive. The witness 
 says he agrees with this language [reading] : 
 
 The farmers' cooperative elevator eompanies have long demanded the stand- 
 ardization of grades for all the grains and Federal inspection of same. About a 
 year ago corn grades were adopted and standardized by the United States Gov- 
 ernment, and they have worked a remarkable change in the handling of this 
 commodity. Any manager of a farmers' elevator can readily place a sample of 
 corn in its right grade, with the assurance that if he has done his work carefully 
 it will correspond with the grading by the inspector at the terminal point. 
 
28 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1911. 
 
 Now, if that is true, all that we need to do in this bill is to author- 
 ize the Ai>ii culture Department to promulgate standards of grades 
 for all classes of cereals; and then I am willing to go further and 
 providue that when grain is sold in interstate commerce by grades it 
 must l)c sold upon those Government grades, thus giving an authority 
 of law to a thing that has worked well so far as it has Ijeen used, even 
 without the authority of law ; but what I protest against — and I am 
 going to come back before the committee, if you will let me — what 
 I protest against is forcing a Government inspection in States over 
 and above the State inspector's department, which in many States is 
 almost perfect, and which I am convinced are veiy superior to any 
 inspection we will e\'er get from the city of Washington. And I call 
 attention expressly to the fact that this has worked well even in its 
 imperfect condition. 
 
 Senator Smith of Georgia. Is it the plan to compel the use of the 
 standards and compel the inspection in all interstate trade, whet;her 
 the owner of the goods desires to sell by the standard or desires 
 to sell without reference to the Government standard ? 
 
 The Chaiemax. They can sell without the grades, on sample and 
 type, without any reference to grades. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. It provides that when they sell by grades, if they do 
 sell by grade, it must be the Government grade. In other words, it 
 must be a uniform standard on interstate transactions. 
 
 The Chairman. Just like it is on cotton. 
 
 Mr. Du^EL. But it allows the greatest freedom. They can sell by 
 type, by sample, or any other way that they see fit. 
 
 Senator Reed. Yes : but this is what the bill does. Senator Smith. 
 I will apply it now to my own State, not because it is better than any 
 other State, but because I am familiar with it. We have a State 
 grain and warehouse inspector. He has numerous deputies. The 
 organization has been built up during a term of years. There is 
 nobody employed in it who is not an expert, men who have become 
 experts, not through civil service, but because they learned what 
 grain was and how to grade it. It works to almost absolute per- 
 fection to-day. The head of it is a man who knows as much about 
 grain as any man in the Agricultural Department at Washington, 
 and I do not reflect on any man here when I say that, because if 
 any of them are as good as he is. then they are certainly experts. 
 
 Now, it is proposed by this bill, first, that not one oJE those men 
 regularly in that business and necessary to be maintained — because 
 on account of interstate shipments of grain we have got to keep 
 the departments up for that — shall be entitled to work unless he can 
 get a license from the Secretary of Agriculture, and. second, it 
 upsets completely our system of work. To-day if an inspector's in- 
 spection is disputed there is an appeal from that inspector under 
 our law to a chief inspector by State law, and in the event that 
 he does not do his work right the State inspector himself can look 
 into the matter. Now, this proposes that all these men shall be 
 disqualified for office imless the Go\'ernment sees fit to license them. 
 And, third, when there is a dispute, instead of its being settled by 
 the organization that exists under the State law to-day, it is referred 
 to a civil-service emjiloyee, who has come down there from abroad, 
 and he proceeds to o\errule our State grain inspector and take the 
 whole business out of his hands. 
 
AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917. 29 
 
 Now, I protest against that, and I serve notice now that if you 
 are going to try to put this bill through with a rider on it that has 
 no business here — it was put on here because they did not dare to 
 make an honest fight for it; they have been licked on it three or 
 four times — ^that you won't pass any agricultural bill at this session 
 of Congress. 
 
 Senator Smith of Georgia. Let me ask you this question, please. 
 
 Senator Reed. If you will take this item out we won't fight it. 
 
 Senator Smith of Georgia. Why wouldn't it be suiRcient, at least 
 for the present, to proceed with the Government standards and have 
 the Government inspection and make it optional with the shipper 
 as to whether he relied in his sales upon Government standards, in- 
 spected by Government officials, or whether he conducted his inter- 
 state trade in some other way that suited him better? 
 
 Senator Johnson. With each individual. 
 
 Senator Smith of Georgia. Yes. 
 
 Mr. DrrvEL. That is practically what this amounts to. 
 
 Senator Eeed. Before I go I want to make my statement plain. 
 I won't filibuster against any bill that comes up on its merits. 
 
 Senator Smith of Georgia. I think we understand that. 
 
 Senator Reed. We beat that other bill by argument, and when it 
 came to a vote we licked them on it ; and here comes a bill now that 
 has been beaten in Congress and the Agriculture Department goes 
 over to the House and has it added onto the appropriation bill to 
 try and put Congress in the shape to pass that bill in that way or to 
 not have an appropriation bill; and I want to say that I have had 
 about all the interference from the department down here with the 
 course of legislation in Congress that I am going to patiently abide 
 by. I have had just about all I want of it. 
 
 The Chairman. I think we gathered that idea, Senator. [Laughter.] 
 
 Senator Reed. That is not half as emphatic as I will make it. 
 
 Senator Geonna. Now, just one minute. This won't take but a 
 moment. I want to make the statement while Senator Reed is here, 
 right on the point you read, section 4. I made the statement that I 
 could not, as a farmer, have my agent at Minneapolis sell for me a 
 carload of grain and ship it into the State of Minnesota without 
 violating the law, and for that violation there is a penalty of $1,000 
 fine or imprisonment, or both. Now, you have not shown me — and 
 I do not believe you can show me — where it can be done. It isn't in 
 the bill. 
 
 Senator Johnson. Didn't you raise the point whether it was done 
 knowingly or not? 
 
 Senator Geonna. Yes. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Senator Reed, might I ask you a question? You 
 spoke of the head of your department in your State. You have ref- 
 erence to the chief inspector? 
 
 Senator Reed. I had reference to James T. Bradshaw. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. You remember his testimony before the committee on 
 the House side when this same legislation was up at the last session 
 of Congress? 
 
 Senator Reed. I Imow what his position is. I did not read his 
 testimony there, but I have got about 40 letters from hina about it. 
 Now, you fellows are not going to wipe out our State grain inspection 
 department. 
 
30 AGEICULTUEE APPBOPBIATION BILL, WIT. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. That is just the reason, Senator, that as a department 
 we take the position of a supervision measure instead of an out-and- 
 out Federal inspection, which would wipe it out. Now, personally, 
 
 1 do not believe in wiping them out. 
 
 Senator Reed. Well, there isn't any use in — ^if a man is good 
 enough to inspect a car of grain ordinarily. 
 
 Senator Geonna. We do business in this way. I wire my com- 
 mission merchants to ship 1,000 bushels No. 1 northern, or whatever 
 it may be. When that wheat arrives, if they do not get No. 1 
 northern, I have violated the law. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. No, sir; not under this bill; that is, you shipped it 
 subject to inspection? 
 
 Senator Geonna. That is not the language of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Du^•EL. You shipped it to Minneapolis, for instance, subject 
 to inspection. 
 
 Seantor Geonna. But I have sold that grain; I have judged it to 
 be No. 1 northern, told the inspector, my man, to sell for my account 
 1,000 bushels No. 1 northern, which of course he has done, but I have 
 erred in my judgment. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. This bill does not affect you in the least until it gets 
 to Minneapolis. When it gets to ^Minneapolis, if it is inspected Xo. 
 
 2 and you still think it is No. 1 northern, you have not violated any 
 provisions of this, but you have the right of appeal. 
 
 Senator Johnson. Do you mean that you appeal from the Federal 
 Government to the exchange in Minneapolis? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. No, sir. We have some States that have State inspec- 
 tions. There are eight States that have State inspection and the 
 rest by local or board of trade inspection. Under the present system 
 3'ou send it on and it is inspected at the market. If j'ou are not 
 satisfied with the inspection you ask for a reinspection ; if you are 
 not satisfied with the reinspection you ask for an appeal, which 
 appeal board is either appointed by the State or appointed by the 
 local board of trade, and in many cases the men serving on the 
 appeals are people who are buying grain in the same market and 
 may be going to get that same car you ai'e appealing on, but as a 
 matter of courtesy he does not, as a rule, sit in a case of that land. 
 
 The Chairman. That sort of a case is a protection of the farmers? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Absolutely. Under this bill, instead of appealing to 
 people appointed by the boards of trade, you appeal to a board 
 appointed by the Federal department. Now, it is just a question 
 whether people want to trust the local boards of trade or whether 
 they prefer to leave it to a department of the Govermnent. 
 
 Senator Geonna. That statement does not apply to the State of 
 Minnesota ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. No, sir; I should say board of trade or State board. 
 
 Senator Geonna. The board of appeal is apjpointed by the State, 
 so they can not be members of the board of trade. 
 
 Mr. Du\EL. I mean the board of trade or the State where they 
 have State inspection. 
 
 Senator Geonna. They are prohibited by law from even. having 
 any interest in any elevator? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes; in some cases they are appointed by the gov- 
 ernor, I think in Minnesota; and I thmk in the States of Missouri 
 or Illinois they are elected by the people. 
 
AGEICULTXTBE APPKOPEIATION BILL, 1917. 31 
 
 Senator Gronna. I am deeply interested in this particular ques- 
 tion. Here is the bill, section 4, as follows : 
 
 The Chairman. If you take the first and third provisos of section 
 4, it takes out of operation what you have read, the case you have 
 stated. 
 
 Senator Gronna. Let us see whether it does or not. 
 
 The first proviso reads as follows [reading] : 
 
 That any such grain sold or offered for sale by one of the grades fixed there- 
 for in the oflicial grain standards may be shipped to or through any place at 
 which an inspector licensed under this act is located, subject, under such rules 
 and regulations as the Secretary of Agriculture shall prescribe, to be inspected 
 at the place to which shipped, or at the place through which shipped for 
 inspection, and subject further to the right of appeal from such inspection, as 
 provided in section sis of this act. 
 
 Does any man contend that it would be at all possible for us to do 
 business in that way ; that we would have to get permission from the 
 Secretary of Agriculture in order to ship grain? It is absolutely 
 impracticable. It can not be done. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Subject to inspection under such rules at some point in 
 transit. A great deal of business is done on that basis. 
 
 The Chairman. That says " on or before." You could ship to 
 Minneapolis and have it graded there in accordance with the rules 
 prescribed by the Secretary in pursuance of this act. Was that pro- 
 viso No. 1 or 3? 
 
 Senator Gronna. That was No. 2. 
 
 The Chairman. Now read proviso No. 3. 
 
 Senator Gronna (reading) : 
 
 And provided further, That any such grain sold or offered for sale by any of the 
 grades fixed therefor in the Official Grade Standards may, in compliance with 
 the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture, be shipped 
 without inspection from a place at which there is no inspector licensed under 
 this act to a place at which there is no such inspector. 
 
 That would not be to Minneapolis. That does not apply. 
 The Chairman. Was that the second or third proviso you read? 
 Senator Gronna. That was the third. 
 Mr. Du'^TEL. I think you missed the second one. 
 Senator Gronna. I read the second first. Now I will read the 
 first [reading] : 
 
 Provided, That any such grain not sold or offered for sale by grade may be 
 sold, offered for sale, shipped, or delivered for shipment in interstate and foreign 
 commerce by sample or by type, or under any name, description, or designation 
 which is not false or misleading, and which name, descriijtion, or designation 
 does not include in whole or in part the terms of any official grain standard of 
 the United States. 
 
 You see that does not take care of it. 
 
 The Chairman. The second proviso, which you read first, meets 
 the situation, shipping from South Dakota to Minneapolis. 
 
 Senator Gronna. It can not be done unless it is by the permission 
 of the Secretary of Agriculture. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Senator Gronna's case would come under the first pro- 
 vision. He sells it to Minneapolis. You sell them a car of No. 1. 
 That is merely your opinion; you really are shipping subject to 
 Minneapolis grading. 
 
 Senator Geonna. Yes; but here is your penalty clause. I want 
 to read that, too. 
 
32 AGEICXJLTXJEE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I am basing my statement entirely on the solicitor's 
 point of view. 
 
 Senator Geonna. You might interpret it that way and the court 
 
 not. In section 9 it says [reading] : 
 
 That any person who shall violate any of the provisions of section four or 
 seven of this act, or any inspector licensed under tliis act who shall knowingly 
 or carelessly inspect or grade improperly any grain which has been shipped or 
 delivered tor shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, or shall knowingly 
 or c iirelessly give any false certificate of inspection or grade, or shall accept 
 money or other consideration, directly or indirectly, for any neglect or improper 
 performance of duty, and any person who shall improperly Influence or attempt 
 to improperly influence any such inspector in the performance of his duty, shall 
 be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more 
 than $1,000, or be imprisoned not more than one year, or both. 
 
 It does not even say shall " knowingly " violate, but any person 
 who shall violate any provisions of the section shall be subject to a 
 fine of $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than one year, or both. I 
 am not a lawyer, but I claim if this bill were passed in the form it 
 now is, it is going to be the subject of a great deal of litigation; that 
 it will mean a depreciation of the price ; the farmer will not care to 
 ask for a reinspection. It will mean the loss of millions of dollars 
 to our people. 
 
 Senator Sjiith of Georgia. Why do not you and your associates 
 get together and consider the amendment? 
 
 Senator Gronna. We shall be glad to do that. 
 
 Senator Brady. Before proceeding further with this matter I am 
 interested to know what the attitude of this committee is toward the 
 department in its advocacy of this bill. I believe that the depart- 
 ment has acted and is acting in good faith in presenting this measure 
 to us. and without discussing the merits of the bill I feel that we 
 should decide once and for all whether or not we want the recom- 
 mendations of the department in the consideration of the bill. If 
 I understand it rightly we requested the Secretary of Agriculture 
 to send a representative of the department, ^Ir. Brand. Chief of the 
 Office of Markets and Rural Organization. We asked to have him 
 come before us and explain this measure and give the reasons why 
 the department thought it should be enacted into law. It may be 
 that the committee will not agree with the decision of the depart- 
 ment, but it does seem to me tlaat the department should at least be 
 treated with courtesy. 
 
 It so happens that I am a member of the Military Affairs Commit- 
 tee. We have been considering for some time an Army bill. We 
 sent for the Secretary of War ; he came before the committee, and we 
 asked him to bring his assistants, as those assistants of the Agricul- 
 tural Department have been brought here to-day, and the committee 
 put in not only days but weeks of time getting the recommendations 
 and the suggestions of the Secretary of War and his assistants as to 
 the passage of that bill. 
 
 I oelieve that the Department of Agriculture is just as important 
 to (1k^ people of this country as the Department or War or the De- 
 partment of the Interior or any of the other Cabinet positions. I 
 oelicve that the position of the chairman of this committee is just as 
 important as that of the chairman of the Committee of Naval Affairs 
 or Military Affairs or of any other committee. 
 
AGBICULTUEE APPKOPBIATION BILL, 1917. 33 
 
 The Chairman. AVe are willing to admit the importance of this 
 committee. We try to help people to live instead of helping them 
 to die. 
 
 Senator Beady. I believe it is just as important that we should 
 help the sale in handling the products of the soil as it is that we 
 should provide for tilling. 
 
 The Chairman. You are entirely right. I believe the sentiment 
 of this country is overwhelmingly in favor of this legislation, and I 
 think that is probably what accounts for these telegrams which we 
 have received. I think the people have taken it as a matter of 
 course that it would pass, because there is so little opposition and 
 such overwhelming support for it. I think it has been noised about 
 that there was opposition in the committee, and that is what accounts 
 for these telegrams. 
 
 Senator Brady. The point I wish to make is this: In discussing 
 the merits of the bill do we or do we not want the assistance of the 
 staff of the Agricultural Department ? 
 
 The Chairman. I think this presumption ought to be indulged 
 until it shown to be otherwise, that the committee as a committee 
 and that each member of the committee is glad to have light from 
 any source, particularly from the Department of Agriculture, which 
 has been making a special study of this problem and all other related 
 problems to agriculture, the protection of these products and the 
 marketing of the products. We are spending a great deal of money 
 on a marketing system here which we ought to expand as time goes 
 on, and everybody knows who studies marketing problems that one 
 of the primary things to be accomplished is the grading of agricul- 
 tural products. You can not have scientific marketmg without 
 established grade. I have the work of Prof. Weld, formerly of the 
 University of Minnesota, now of Yale, and he observes that the grad- 
 ing of farm products is one of the prerequisites of scientific market- 
 ing. The sentiment is overwhelmingly for it, and I think it was 
 assumed that we were for it. Of course we have a good many things 
 to absorb our attention here. 
 
 Senator Gronna. I wish to finish my question. I want to repljr 
 to what Senator Brady said. I do not know whether it was intended 
 in criticism of me or not, but I asked the gentleman, who was sup- 
 posed to know something about the workings of this bill, to point 
 out to me certain specific conditions which, in my mind, I believe 
 are unworkable so far as our situation is concerned. 
 
 Senator Brady. I want to say that I was not referring to the 
 Senator. I was regretting exceedingly that a vote called us away 
 from the room, because I wanted to make, this statement while the 
 senior Senator from Missouri was in the room. 
 
 The Chairman. I should like to say that in view of the fact that 
 Senator Gronna is a farmer himself I think everybody has great 
 regard and deference for his views on any of these matters. 
 
 Senator Geonna; I appreciate that. 
 
 The Chairman. I think your views ought to be worked out ; and 
 if the point you make is not covered in this bill, it undoubtedly ought 
 to be, and I think it is a very valuable suggestion. 
 
 Senator Geonna. I have referred it to able lawyers, and they 
 claim I am right. 
 
 46655—0—16 3 
 
34 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, IW?, 
 
 Senator Joiixsox. I iim a rit-w member on this committee, and it 
 is no doubt hard for me to digest the matter that is Ijrought before 
 us, but personally I want the counsel, the advice, rather, of the 
 department. I knoAv and feel that they have a very deep interest 
 in this thing, and that it is xary important to us to get that advice, 
 and I do not want to stand in the way of having this bill reported 
 out, but I feel that I represent a section of country that would want 
 me to understand fully a number of these points, and I feel, as does 
 Senator Gronna, that there are some things that, with the light I 
 now have, I would not support. Maybe later on, with their help 
 and the help of the committee. I shall be able to adjust all of these 
 things. 
 
 The Chairman. I think the jjaramount object of this bill is to re- 
 lieve and protect the farmers of North Dakota. .South Dakota. Okla- 
 homa, and other States against arbitrary findings, either on the part 
 of State boards or boards of trade or lioards of inspection, and it is 
 primarily to protect the farmer against false or arbitrary grading 
 and at least to give him an appeal t(i a disinterested board in cases 
 where he is not satisfied. If he is satisfied, he does not have to 
 appeal. If he is dissatisfied, he has the right to appeal. 
 
 Senator Brady. Just a word, and then I shall be through. I wish 
 to say that I may not vote for this amendment. I was not discussing 
 the merits of the bill, I was simply saying that I believe that we — 
 and if I understand the situation the committee desires — and I am 
 sure I do — the cooperation and the advice of the Agi-iculture De- 
 partment. Since I <iuit speaking to you a moment ago the secretary 
 (if the committee has handed me a telegram. 
 
 Senator Gronna. I have also received one just like it. 
 
 Senator Brady. It happens to be from the State of the Senator 
 who just addressed us. It is as follows [reading] : 
 
 St. LdUis, JIo.. .1/(7 J/ 19, 1916. 
 .T. H. Brady, 
 
 Snwte (.'oininHtcc on Atjrieiilliire and Forc-itrii, M^ashington, D. C: 
 Tlie grain-grades liill now before ydiu- committi^*' for consideration as part of 
 Agricultural bill is undoubtedly the most important legislation affecting the 
 "grain business in all its branches from the producer to the ultimate consumer 
 that has e\er come before Congress. Thefre is now such a multiplicity of grain- 
 grnding definitions and rules and so much continued controverey between 
 buyers and sellers in different markets that can only be brought into agreement 
 by the central power of the Federal Government that we will consider it almost 
 in the nature of a business calamitj If relief is not now given by the enact- 
 ment of the f;iiiin-grad(\s legislation as recently approved by the House. We 
 earnestly solicit ymir support of this legislation, believing that It will bring 
 order out of the present chaotic interstate and International conditions in the 
 marketing of grain. 
 
 Samuel Platt, 
 ricKi<!<nt of the MUIers' \atio'nal Federation. 
 
 I do not mean to say that telegram has any influence on me what- 
 ever, but I do mean to say that we have the right to give the matter 
 fair and equitable consideration. 
 
 The CiiAiK.AiAN. Mr. Duvel, I wish you would first describe the 
 evils in the domestic maiket, then the evils in the foreign market, 
 and then explain how this bill is calculated to remedy those con- 
 ditions. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. In the present markets we have, as stated in that tele- 
 gram, a multiplicity of grades in the different markets, and a lack 
 
AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917. 35 
 
 of definiteness of grades in the same market. A great many of our 
 grade rules say the grain should be reasonably dry and reasonably 
 clean, but in all the years I have been working on this proposition 
 I have yet to get anybody to outline to me or to specify what is 
 reasonably dry or reasonably clean. 
 
 The Chairman. About how many of these domestic markets are 
 there ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. There are between 30 and 35 markets that have receipts 
 of 5,000,000 bushels or more. 
 
 The Chairman. And they all have different grades? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Practically. In some cases the grade rules are the 
 same. Take our corn rules which ha^'e been adopted in all the 
 interior markets. 
 
 The Chairman. How many would you say? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I would say all of the interior markets. They have 
 not been adopted by the export markets. I mean by the Atlantic 
 seaboard export markets — that is, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, 
 and Baltimore, except in Baltimore I believe they will grade on the 
 basis of uniform grades or the Government grades if they are 
 requested to do so. 
 
 The Chaiesian. You mean all the other markets have adopted uni- 
 form grades ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. All the other markets have and are working under 
 our grades. 
 
 The Chairman. How does it work? , 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. It works very well so far as they carry it out, but it 
 is impossible to carry it out uniformly without some kind of super- 
 vision in order to keep them lined up. Every inspector puts his 
 own interpretation on it. 
 
 The Chairman. How would this bill meet that situation as to the 
 domestic market? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Under this bill it gives opportunity for a supervision 
 of the grading in these various markets by the Federal Government 
 so as to keep these men lined up, and also an authority in that case, 
 of course, to handle appeals when there is a difference of opinion as 
 to grades. Our plan is to have somebody to keep these various mar- 
 kets lined up, visit them, or have representative samples sent regu- 
 larly to different points, so they may be checked up, and the grading 
 kept on a uniform basis. 
 
 The Chairman. You think there should be substituted for the 35 
 different and local grades one uniform grade? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes; the different markets should have the same 
 grades. That is, we believe No. 1 or No. 2 corn ought to be the 
 same in Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans, or New York. 
 
 The Chairman. So the buyers and sellers everywhere may know 
 f?hat the market was ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. So when a man goes on the market and sells a car- 
 load of No. 2 in Chicago or St. Louis he knows exactly on what basis 
 it is going to be graded and does not have to stop and look up all 
 the different grades and take into consideration the question of sup- 
 ply and demand in the various markets, or how the inspector is 
 going to interpret it. That is the situation with the farmers. They 
 ave not been able to know and understand all of these grades. If 
 
36 AGRICULTUEE APPEOPEIATIOX BILL, 1917. 
 
 we can get something uniform and something permanent, then the 
 dealer will know what he can expect. I'nless we can get some uni- 
 formity and under some Federal control, as we see the situation, the 
 farmer really has no opportunity to know these grades. There is 
 no encouragement under the present conditions to grow and market 
 grain of high quality. The bulk of it goes in simply as corn and 
 takes an average price. The farmers of this country who are grow- 
 ing and marketing a high grade of grain are receiving less than they 
 are entitled to because of the careless farmer who markets a low- 
 grado grain. That is the situation exactly. And that situation will 
 continue to exist until there is some legislation whereby the farmer 
 may know these grades, know what his rights are and be in a posi- 
 tion to demand them and mil in some disinterested party to see 
 that he gets his just rights when he can not get them otherwise. 
 
 The ('iiAiRMAX. Do you think the farmer would be a beneficiary 
 luidci- this act '. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. lie undoubtedly would. And it is absolutely neces- 
 sary, as we see it. if we are to improve the quality of grain that goes 
 to market. 
 
 Tlie CiiAiuMAX. Do you tliink this is essential to an improved 
 market, the system generally? 
 
 Mr. Du^'EL. Undoubtedly. 
 
 The C'hairjiax. I have heard this illustration used, as illustrat- 
 ing this situation, that before we had a nationalized currency that 
 every State had a system of State banks, "' wild-cat banks.'" that 
 issued wild-cat currency, and a man going from one State to an- 
 other never knew what his money was worth; had to carry a di- 
 rectoiy or registry along to interpret the money in one State that 
 he gdt in another. I have heard it suggested that the present variety 
 of grades, 35 different markets and 35 different grades, was com- 
 parable to the old system of State bank currency, and what is pro- 
 posed in this bill is to nationalize it and have the grades uniform 
 everywhere just as we now have the dollar good everywhere. 
 
 ;Mr. DiTVEL. That amounts to the same thing exactly in this grain 
 situation. 
 
 The Chairjian. I thought that was a very pointed illustration of 
 it. Now describe the export business, please. 
 
 ]Mr. DuvEL. The export situation, the complaints that have been 
 coming in from the exporter is because practically all our grain that 
 goes to export, the corn is on the basis of Xo. 2. the spring wheat is 
 on tile basis of No. 1 northern, and the winter wheat, both hard and 
 soft, is on the basis of No. 2. 
 
 Now, our export situation as we have investigated it, those export 
 grades that we have investigated reju'esent nothing more than the 
 a\erage of our crops, but when you get back into the country and find 
 out the price the farmer receives for his grain, you find it is not on 
 the basis of No. 2 or No. 1 northern by any means. And we feel 
 this way, that the price in Liverpool in a large measure governs tlie 
 price; that is, the price in Liverpool that they pay for our surplus 
 in a 1 Ill-go measure governs the price that goes right back to our 
 producers. 
 
 The Chairman. You think the price in the Liverpool market reacts 
 on our farmers? 
 
AGEICULTUBE APPEOPEIATION BILL, 1917. 37 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. That is the way we feel about it, that it can not do 
 anything else. 
 
 The Chairman. I ha\e heard this urged as a complaint that lack 
 of anj' standard of nationalized grades of grain in this country has 
 destroyed the reputation of our grain abroad, or has impaired its 
 reputation, and that as a result they pay the lowest prices possible. 
 
 Mr. DuYEL. I think that is the situation exaclly. That is covered 
 in a little statement that was put out and will appear in the next issue 
 of the Weekly News Letter. These complaints have been coming in 
 for many years. 
 
 The Chairman. I base that statement on consular reports I had 
 examined. 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. Yes, sir. I should like to read just one or two of 
 these. This is from the Italian Embassy. 
 
 One of the most recent complaints (Mar. 8, 1916) reads in part as 
 follows [reading] : 
 
 The Italian Emba.ssy begs to infonii tlie State Department tliat In tlie last 
 few months there have arrived in Italy from the United States quite a number 
 of shipments of wheat which were found to be in very poor condition, largely 
 unfit for consumption, notwithstanding the fact that they were accompanied by 
 regular inspection certificates issued by comisetent State authorities. * * * 
 These occurrences have created a most unfavorable impression in Italian com- 
 mercial circles, where it is felt that some American exporters of wheat have 
 not been dealing with that degree of correctness customary in commercial trans- 
 actions. 
 
 From another, under date of October, 1913, we read [reading] : 
 
 The certificates of the inspectors of the grain exchanges of the United States 
 
 sliipping places ( , , and others) are considered on our side with the 
 
 greatest possible distrust, as they are not giving the slightest security for the 
 good condition of the grain shipped. From year to year the standard seems to 
 have been lowered, just as it suited the shippers or members of the exchanges. 
 
 The secretary of the Hull Corn Trade Association, under date of 
 October, 1913, wrote [reading] : 
 
 Since December, 1911, there have been practically no arrivals of American 
 maize at Hull, one of the reasons being that buyers here do not care to take the 
 risk of condition. 
 
 The department received last December through the American 
 ambassador at London a long summarized complaint of the London. 
 Corn Trade Association, the Liverpool Corn Trade Association, and 
 the National Association of British & Irish Millers, from which I 
 take the following [reading] : 
 
 For many years European buyers of United States grain shipped from At- 
 lantic and Gulf ports have expressed grave dissatisfaction with the conditions 
 of trading In respect of the quality of grain exported on certificate. Matters 
 have now reached a climax. * * * Large quantities of No. 2 hard winter 
 wheat, 1915 crop, * * * inspection, have been sold and shipped in the last 
 few months. A large proportion of this wheat was neither dry, nor sound, nor 
 sweet, nor did it weigh 59 pounds per bushel, nor even was it in any degree hard 
 on its arrival in this country. * * * By the later export of grossly inferior 
 and improperly graded wheat some United States shippers have secured an 
 immediate advantage on contracts then existing, but the loss of good repute is 
 serious and deplorable. Buyers can not be fleeced with impunity. * * * 
 It is hard to believe that even those sellers wdao are dominated by consideration 
 of merely personal advantage can be satisfied with this state of afCairs, and it 
 must be in the highest degree unsatisfactory to honorable traders in the States 
 who have to suffer for the misdeeds of the unscrupulous ones. * * " The 
 want of uniformity in. a system of grading must result in a lowering of the 
 value of the whole crop, for buyers naturally base their price on the poorest 
 quality they may receive. 
 
38 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1017. 
 
 Senator Brady. Who is that from? 
 
 Mr. Di VEL. That is a joint complaint from the London Corn 
 Trade Assf)ciation, the Liverpool Corn Trade Association, and the 
 National Association of British and Irish Millers. 
 
 Senator Gronna. "What is the date of the letter? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. That, I think, is November 29, 1915. 
 
 Senator Joiixson. Do you not think it would be a good idea to 
 appoint a committee of some of us and some of the men who are 
 affected particularly by the wheat industry to recommend something 
 to the committee that would cover the points raised by Senator 
 Gronna ? 
 
 The Chairman. I might say this, that we requested Senator Wads- 
 worth to get in touch with the Senators from the grain States partic- 
 ularly and try to work out a series of amendments in regard to the 
 bill, but the Senator has been very busy ; has been away part of the 
 time, and has been very busy since he came back on the rivers and 
 harbors bill. He is on the subcommittee and the subcommittee re- 
 quested him to do that, he being from a large grain-producing State. 
 
 Senator Johnson. That has oeen done, has it? 
 
 The Chairman. I do not think he has done it. We requested him 
 to do it, however, but we will get together and thrash it out, and I 
 think what we want is not to set our faces against this, but try to 
 adopt it. The points offered by Senator Gronna ought to be met, 
 must be met. 
 
 Senator Brady. I think that is very important. 
 
 Senator Johnson. I know that the department has the interests 
 of our States in view just the same as they had all other interests in 
 connection with these matters, I mean particularly with regard to 
 wheat and other grains that we are handling extensively, and per- 
 sonally T want to be very sure I am right in my ideas, and perhaps I 
 can get enough information to do that, so as not in any way to hold 
 the bill back. 
 
 The Chairman. T think that is the spirit in which we are all ap- 
 proaching it, if it is not what we want, to make it so. Of course, it 
 is not sacred at all, and is subject to amendment and improvement, 
 and I hope everybody has that attitude toward it. 
 
 Mt. Du^-el. That is our position on it. We want the best bill pos- 
 sible to protect the producer and protect the honest dealer, and give 
 the consumer what he buys. 
 
 The CiT AiRjrAN. I think this will help the farmer and the honest 
 dealer in grain and the miller and consumer, everybody concerned. 
 That is the object of it, and if it is not adapted to that object, we 
 want to read apt it, that is all. 
 
 Mr. Duvet.. The dealers are interested in this proposition for this 
 reason very largely — that is. T mean those who handle, buy. and sell 
 purely — not the consumer.^, not the millers. 
 
 Here you have this situation : Two years ago — or more specifically, 
 in 1914— we had the drycst oat crop we have liad in this country 
 for 10 or 15' years. Most of tlie oats from central Illinois and ad- 
 jacent sections were harvested and stored in tlio elevators and put 
 into tlie farmers' bins with a moistui-e content of about 10 per cent, 
 which is exceedingly low. Some grain dealers, some unscrupulous 
 dealers, started watering those oats when they come to sell them, 
 adding 1. 2. 3 per cent, and in some instances the moisture content 
 
AGBIOULTUBE APPROPEIATION BILL, 1917. 39 
 
 was increased to as much as 15, IC, and 17 per cent. There are 
 grain dealers in this country who desire to do an honest business who 
 absohitely refused, I am aci\'ise(l on good authority, to continue that 
 kind of business because they could not meet the competition. 
 Others, in order to keep from being forced out of business by such 
 unjust competition were obliged to resort to the same practices, 
 although they were entirely opposed to them. 
 
 Those are the conditions we want to avoid. We have the same 
 thing in mixing barley and oats. Whenever the price, pound for 
 pound, of oats exceeds that of barley we find them creeping in, 5, 
 10, 15, or 20 per cent, sometime as high as 40 to 50 per cent, and an 
 honest dealer who wants to sell straight goods and deliver what he 
 sells simply can not meet the competition ; therefore, the grain men 
 come out and say we want some legislation so that in selling No. 2 
 oats or No. 2 corn we shall knoAv what the grade is, and know what 
 we and our competitors have got to deliver. That is their position. 
 
 Senator Bradt. If that condition exists, it should be corrected? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. It does exist and that is the reason the regular 
 dealers are in favor oi this legislation. 
 
 Senator Johnson. We have in mind, of course, the duty that we 
 owe to the regular dealers who conduct legitimate businesses, but 
 we particularly have in mind the producer, the large number of men 
 who sell, and it is their interest more particularly that we are in- 
 terested in, because there are a great many more of them. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Here is the situation in the corn section. You go out 
 through the country, most corn is sold at the country elevator 
 merely as corn, on the basis price of No. 3 or No. 4. A year ago, the 
 1914 crop, under these new grades when we had a lot of good corn, 
 when we had an exceptionally good quality of corn, the corn farmers 
 sold their corn on the basis of No. 3 and No. 4 and were delivering 
 it, hundreds and thousands of bushels of good No. 2 corn, at No. 3 
 and No. 4 prices, because the Federal Government had no authority 
 to supervise, and of course the grades were new, and they had not 
 become fullj' acquainted with the grades. The same thing applies 
 to wheat. 
 
 Senator Gronna. A little while ago you called attention of Sen- 
 ator Smith (Georgia) to the fact that the grain dealers of Georgia 
 were swindled ; that they had paid too much for their corn. 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. In a great many instances they do not get what they 
 buy ; yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Geonna. Has that not been your argument all through 
 the hearings ; all through the House hearings has that not been your 
 argument? Has not your argument been in favor of the dealer in 
 this way that they have paid too much ? When I get the time I am 
 going to read a considerable portion of your testimony before the 
 House committee. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. In a great many instances that is true. Take this 
 particular case of No. 2 corn, shipped last summer into the State of 
 Alabama. I think there were 24 cars bought on the basis of No. 2. 
 According to our analysis of those samples, 1 car graded No. 2, 4 
 cars No. 3, 15 cars No. 4, 2 cars of No. 5, and 2 of No. 6. 
 
 Now, the situation is this : As a result of competition the price, of 
 course, that he paid Avas perhaps less than what the value of good 
 No. 2 corn should bring. 
 
40 AGEICULILiiE APPEOPBIATION BILL, lOlT. 
 
 Senator Groxxa. Do not let us assume anything in as serious a 
 proposition as this, Doctor. Let us get down to facts. You just 
 assume this, do A'ou not? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Then I will say it was. But I do not want to say so, 
 because I could not furnish the figures. Xow, we have that same 
 thing in oats that I just mentioned before you came in. In the 1914 
 crop of oats, the driest crop we have harvested for years, most of it 
 went out from the farms, or into the farmers' bins, with about 10 
 per cent moisture. Oats will carry more moisture than that. Some 
 dealers started the practice of watering the oats, and we fo"und 
 where they had added water up to 15, 16, and in one or two instances 
 17 per cent. In such cases, as the result of the competition, for in- 
 stance, one man will add 2 per cent of water: he will undersell on 
 the basis of Xo. 2 oats; that is, he will cut the price one-fourth cent 
 or one-half cent per bushel. lie will still get the business, still 
 make an extra profit. Somebody else comes along and he will add 3 
 per cent, and he will cut the price three-fourths cent, and he will 
 still make a profit and f;(t the business, and in that way, through 
 competition, the price of Xo. '2 oats is gradually forced down, but it 
 is an inferior Xo. 2, brought about by those conditions. 
 
 A man, in order to stay in the business, must either resort to that 
 same practice or he has got to sell at a loss, which, of course, he can 
 not afford to do. The same thinp: we have true of mixing barley and 
 wheat. We also have the same thing true of mixing rye with winter 
 wheat. 
 
 Senator (iroxna. Do you believe anyone purposely mixes rye 
 and wheat? 
 
 Mr. DivEL. Yes. sir; there is no question about it. 
 
 Senator Groxxa. You know, of course, as a matter of fact, that 
 if you sow wheat on ground where barley was planted the year before 
 that it is an impossibility to prexent the mixing of the two grains 
 together ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Barley and wheat? 
 
 Senator Groxna. I mean rye and wheat. 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. That is just one thing we are trying to investigate in 
 fixing these grades. We are studying these conditions on the farm, 
 taking this into consideration and finding out to what extent mix- 
 ture of that character occur through good farm practice under just 
 such conditions, so that these grades, when we once fix them and 
 establish them, can be established on a basis that our farmers, under 
 good farm practice, can meet without any hardship whatever. 
 
 Senator Gronna. Grain of that kind is grain that ought to be sold 
 by test, is it not? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Grain of that kind would be sold by test. When it 
 got into the market, if it had any appreciable quantity of other 
 grains, it would naturally go into a separate grade and be sold on 
 its merits. 
 
 The CiiAiRArAX. Have you known instances of mixture^ 
 
 Mr. Di VEL. Yes. sir; wo find this going on. 
 
 Senator CJronxa. You find grain is mixed; but have you traced it 
 to the shipper; have you proved that it was done willfully, that the 
 (wo grains were mixed together? 
 
 Mr. Dt VEE. Under the food and drugs act, the department has 
 made a number of prosecutions for the addition of moisture in 
 
AGKICULTUEE APPROPEIATION BILL^ 1917. 41 
 
 grain and the mixing of barley with oats, etc. Those are matters of 
 record. When this practice of adding Avater and mixing barley 
 and wheat was investigated a year ago by the Burea-u of Chemistry, 
 they made some seventy-odd seizures, or something to that effect. 
 That, of course, comes under another department. 
 
 Senator Gronna. I was speaking more particularly of rye and 
 wheat. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. That happens sometimes. You will find there are 
 some sections where elevators take in rye but never ship any out. 
 
 Senator Warren. In some of those cases may they not grow to 
 some extent mixed? I know sometimes one crop follows another 
 and there is a mixture there which the grower can not prevent. 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. That is what we try to take into consideration in 
 fixing these standards. We study this grain as it comes direct from 
 the farm. We do not always get the samples right on the farm, but 
 we take those samples at the country elevator, because we can get 
 them there much more economically as the farmer delivers his grain 
 from his wagon. We get the information from the farmer how it 
 was planted, and so on, and then try to fix a grade to meet his con- 
 ditions. We will say, in a certain grade of wheat we would, perhaps, 
 allow a small percentage of rye before grading it down. That is, we 
 find about 1 per cent of rye in wheat will affect its milling value. 
 The department would not«consider, of course, the idea of fixing a 
 grade of No. 1 northern wheat, or No. 2 red winter wheat, that it 
 must be absolutely free of rye, because that would be a hardship 
 on the producers. There might, as Senator Gronna saj's, a little 
 voluntary rye com4 in, or there might be a little mixed with the 
 seed. • 
 
 Senator Gronna. It could not be mixed with the seed, because it 
 would not mature at the same time. 
 
 Mr. DtJVEL. Not in your section. 
 
 Senator Gronna. It would have to be a voluntary crop. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Of course, in the winter-wheat section it goes in 
 with the seed in the fall. 
 
 Senator Johnson. The objection that I raised to the Avheat part 
 of the bill would apply Avith equal force to corn, oats, and other 
 grains of which we raise a great variety in our State, and I only 
 hope that we shall be able to get the bill on a proper basis, in proper 
 shape, so that I can vote for it myself, speaking for one. 
 
 Senator Gronna. Senator Gore, I want to go into the method of 
 testing grain. I know something about it. It is perhaps a little 
 out of the ordinary for me to say that I am going into the scientific 
 methods of testing grain, chemical tests, and I shall want some 
 time to do that. I do not feel that I can do it this evening. I 
 want to know, and I have the right to know from Mr. Duvel, rep- 
 resenting as I do the greatest grain-growing State in this 
 Union 
 
 Senator Thompson. Except Kansas. 
 
 Senator Gronna. I beg pardon for my reflection on Kansas. We 
 will take the two States. 
 
 The Chairman. Let me ask you a question. 
 
 Senator Gronna. May I be permitted to finish my statement? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes, sir. 
 
42 AGBICULTUHE APPEOPEIATION BILL, 1917. 
 
 Senator Gronna. I am intensely interested in the proper system of 
 Federal inspection. I Avant to know from you, Dr. Duvel, how you 
 are going to test this grain, and I think this committee has the right 
 to Imow it. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. I shall be glad to discuss that. 
 
 The CiiAiEjiAN. You may proceed. I understood you to say. Sen- 
 ator Gronna, that you favored Federal inspection. 
 
 Senator Gronna. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. You favor that as against Federal supervision? 
 
 Senator Gronna. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. It occurred to me when you made that remark 
 that whatever system you used to arrive at honest grades under 
 Federal inspection might be used to ascertain honest grades under 
 Federal supervision. 
 
 Senator Gronna. There is a vast difference between the two. Here 
 you have a dual system. 
 
 The Chairman. There is a vast difference as far as administrative 
 processes, perhaps, but no difference in standardization. 
 
 Senator Gronna. Standardization has absolutely nothing to do 
 with supervision. They are two separate propositions. 
 
 Senator Shafroth. AVe should like to hear you on this. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. I should like to make another remark as to what 
 Senator Gronna said concerning Federal inspection and what Sen- 
 ator Gore said concerning Federal supervision. Federal inspection 
 goes further than supervision. If you have Federal inspection, the 
 same identical machinery as is provided for in tlys bill must be pro- 
 vided for the stipervision of Federal inspection in order to make it 
 uniform. The Government' and no other organization can appoint a 
 series of Federal inspectors and say, " Here are your rules," and dis- 
 tribute them around all over this great country of ours and tell them 
 to inspect grain and keep them together. You have got to supervise 
 them. 
 
 Senator Gronna. This provides inspection of grain and super- 
 vision both. 
 
 ilr. Duvel. Xo, sir : just supervision, the grading to be done under 
 the present system. Under Federal inspection the Government would 
 take over the present men who are doing this inspecting business 
 because thev are the onlv men competent in the United States to 
 do it. ' ■ 
 
 Senator Thompson. This does not provide for Federal grading at 
 all, this bill I 
 
 Mr. Duvel. The grading is to be done by the State authorities or 
 by the board of trade authorities under a license by the Federal Gov- 
 ernment, anil the Federal Government handles the appeals and 
 supervises the inspection. 
 
 The Ciiair:\l\n. There are two theories. Senator Thompson; one, 
 direct Federal inspection under inspectors appointed by the Gov- 
 ernment and supervised by the Government. This act is Federal 
 supervision of what vou might say was State and local inspection. It 
 does not go so far as that— it utilizes existing machinery with an 
 
 appeal power. ^ -^ , i 
 
 Senator Shafroth. Doctor, Senator Gronna aslred you a question, 
 and I am very much interested in it. 
 
AGEICJULTTJEE APPEOPEIATION BILL, lPt7. 43 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I will discuss that on the basis of our corn grades, be- 
 cause those are ah'eady fixed. In the old corn grades, in most cases, 
 the rules provided that certain grades shall be dry, or shall be clean, 
 or that No. 3 is not good enough for No. 2 and No. 4 not good enough 
 for No. 3, etc., down the line. Now, in our grades we have made that 
 definite. The moisture content is an important factor. We provide 
 that No. 1 corn shall not contain to exceed 14 per cent of moisture. 
 That is good dry corn, as we find in the summertime, after the corn 
 is thoroughly dried out, after about the 1st of June, on a farm up 
 until the new corn comes in. That No. 2 corn shall not contain to 
 exceed 15^ per cent moisture; No. 3, not to exceed 17^ per cent mois- 
 ture ; No. 4, not to exceed 19^ per cent ; No. 5, not to exceed 21^ per 
 cent; and No. 6, not to exceed 23 per cent; and any corn in excess 
 of 23 per cent goes into sample grade so far as moisture is concerned. 
 
 Under the old system a man looked at the sample and said, " That 
 is too wet to grade." We have devised a method whereby we can de- 
 termine the moisture content in about 25 or 30 minutes on an indi- 
 vidual sample, or with one man and an assistant, running all day long, 
 they will average about two minutes for each individual test on a 
 sample. 
 
 In this proposition, our idea, when we recommended that moisture 
 test, was that it would be used merely in case of a dispute, but the 
 grain exchanges have adopted it, and they are using that test now 
 and using it in the inspection department of the State of Illinois, 
 in Chicago, and so far as I have ever been able to learn it is entirely 
 suitable. And we feel if they can handle it in Chicago on their 
 corn, in the greatest grain market in the United States, why they can 
 handle it in all other markets. 
 
 Senator Gronna. You are speaking now entirely of the physical 
 test, not of the chemical test ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Not of the chemical test. 
 
 Senator Geonna. Do you believe you can apply that to wheat and 
 do justice to the farmer, the producer of the grain? 
 
 Mr. DtrvEL. Absolutely. 
 
 Senator Geonna. That is the reason I have a suspicion that we 
 would be a great deal worse off under your administration than we 
 would be under the present, and I am going to take the time of the 
 committee to-morrow to show to the committee that it is possible 
 to have more protein, to have more albuminous substances, in grain 
 that is graded No. 4 than is graded No. 1. I think I can prove that. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. More protein ? I am familiar with that, Senator. That 
 is, we find, so far as protein content is concerned, that some of the 
 lower grades will show a higher protein content than some of the 
 higher grades, but what you gain in protein content you lose in yield 
 of flour. 
 
 Senator Gronna. I am going to show in dollars and cents — at least, 
 I shall attempt to prove to you in figures — that the farmer is losing 
 money by the test that you propose. 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. Understand, we have not fixed the grades for wheat. 
 
 Senator Geonna. But you are outlining your position, the way you 
 are going to handle this proposition. I asked you that very ques- 
 tion last year and you gave the same answer then that you were go- 
 ing to base your test absolutely upon a physical test. 
 
44 AGEICULTUBE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1911. 
 
 Mr. Dm-EL. That is just to the one feature. That other problem 
 that you indicate there we have been investigating that very thing 
 for about two years to find out whether there is not some way by 
 vrhich that factor can be measured and we have some most excel- 
 lent results now. That work is being done in our laboratory in 
 Chicago. 
 
 Senator Groxna. You have heard of Dr. Ladd, of North Dakota? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Gronna. He is a fairly able chemist, is he not ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I might say in this connection that we have our lab- 
 oratory working in cooperation with Dr. Ladd, and the results 
 you speak of there, the baking tests, are done by a representative of 
 my office. 
 
 Senator Gronxa. I know all about that. 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. I am familiar with the entire situation. In the corn 
 grades we take into consideration the question of the dampness, the 
 question of dirt, and so on. In the northwest they have a system 
 where the dirt is eliminated, i. e., a dockage sj'stem. It is an ele- 
 gant system. It is a question as to the adoption of the system, which 
 one of these two should be used. In grading corn the practice has 
 been in all the markets, if it contains an excessive amount of dirt, 
 to grade it down, to throw it into a lower grade. If they remove the 
 dirt the grade is higher, but it is sold at the lower weight, or if they 
 leave it in it is discounted in price. 
 
 The Chairjian. You would not like judgment passed on j'our 
 wheat grades before they are formulated? 
 
 Mr. Du\EL. Xo, sir; and I will say in addition to that that at 
 various times when I have discussed proposed grades I have asked 
 all persons interested in them who had any ideas as to the grades 
 to send them in to us with their arguments, and before the grades 
 are fixed we want to take all points into consideration and to get 
 in touch with the grain trade and get their views on it and endeavor 
 to fix grades that will be workable, practical, and that will cover 
 grain that the farmers can and do pi'oduce. 
 
 Senator Shafroth. Are you through now. Doctor I 
 
 Mr. DxTVEL. I am through on that. 
 
 Senator Shaeroth. I think it would be a good idea after we ad- 
 journ for you and Senator Gronna to get together and see whether 
 you can not reconcile your diiferences. Xine-tenths of the misunder- 
 standings between men are because they do not understand each 
 other. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. I should be glad to do that at any time. 
 
 The Chairman. The committee will adjourn now until to-morrow 
 morning. 
 
 (Thereupon at 5.20 p. m. the committee adjourned until Saturday, 
 May 20, 1916, at 10 o'clock a. m.) 
 
AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917-GRAIN-GRADES 
 
 AMEiNDMENT. 
 
 SATUEDAY, MAY 20, 1916. 
 
 United States Senate, 
 
 Committee on Agriculture, 
 
 Washington; D. G. 
 The committee met at 10.15 o'clock a. m. pursuant to adjournment, 
 Senator Thomas P. Gore presiding. 
 
 The committee resumed consideration of the bill (H. R. 12717) 
 making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the 
 fiscal year ending June 30, 1917. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, Mr. Duvel, we will be glad to have you 
 proceed with your remarks. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. J. W. T. DUVEL, BUREAU OF PLANT INDUS- 
 TRY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE— Continued. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Concerning the situation Senator Eeed brought up 
 yesterday before the committee as to the attitude of the Missouri 
 inspection department toward this bill, I want to read out of the 
 testimony before the House committee when this bill was up last year 
 what Mr. Bradshaw had to say concerning it. 
 
 The Chairman. Who is Mr. Bradshaw ? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Mr. Bradshaw is the warehouse commissioner of the 
 State of Missouri, who has charge of the grain inspection of that 
 State, which is under State inspection. He said [reading] : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, as a State official in charge 
 of grain inspection and weighing, my desire in the way of legislation, I think, 
 is very much the same as that of this committee ; that is, to secure the most 
 wholesome and beneficial legislation on this question that can be had. We are 
 not here antagonizing or opposing any bill. Personally, and from experience in 
 our department for 10 years and more, I think that this bill, or a bill along^ 
 these lines, prepared by the Department of " Agriculture to secure uniform 
 grading in the various markets of this country is essential and even absolutely 
 necessary. ' 
 
 The bill under discussion at that time was what is known as the 
 Moss bill, H. E. 14493. 
 
 The Chairman. Practically identical with the Rubey bill, which is 
 before us. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Practically identical Avith the Kubey bill. 
 
 A considerable quantity of our grain arrives in Europe in a 
 damaged condition. In the corn work alone we accompanied eight 
 cargoes, sent men with those cargoes, who made observations in 
 transit ; and six out of those eight cargoes showed corn in some part 
 of the cargo at a temperature of 120° F. or more. 
 
 45 
 
46 AGKICULTXJEE APPEOPBIATION BILL, 1917. 
 
 Senate r Wadsworth. Was that due to excessive moisture? 
 
 Mr. DtJvEL. That was due to excessive moisture, in most cases, at 
 the time the corn was loaded. 
 
 The Chairman. "Were you here at the time? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. These complaints have been coming in from European 
 markets since 1896 — vigorous complaints. They advise us to-day 
 that if the department establishes Government grades, they will buy 
 on no other basis. 
 
 Now, it says [reading] : 
 
 For many years the Federal Government has been receiving serious com- 
 plaints from Europe relative to the unsatisfactory quality and condition of 
 grain shipped from the United States under cuntract of American certificate 
 final. These complaints have come from European grain-trade organizations, 
 grain dealers and millers' associations, and individual importers. They have 
 formed a basis of numerous reports from American diplomatic and consular 
 representatives abroad, and in several instances the dissatisfaction has become 
 so great as to lead to diplomatic communications from embassies in foreign 
 countries. Excerpts from a few representative complaints will serve to show 
 the lack of confidence on the part of European buyers in American grain certifi- 
 cates. One of the most recent complaints, March 8, 1916, reads, in part, as 
 follows : 
 
 " The Italian Enil)assy begs to inform the State Department that in the last 
 few months there have arrived in Italy from the United States quite a number 
 of shipments of wheat which were found to be in a very poor condition, largely 
 unfit for consumption, notwithstanding the fact that they were accompanied by 
 regular inspection certificates issued by competent State authorities. * * * 
 These occurrences have created a most unfavorable impression in Italian com- 
 mercial circles, where it is felt that some American exporters of wheat have 
 not been dealing with that degree of correctness customary in commercial 
 transactions." 
 
 Senator Xoeris. What is the date of that ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. March 8, 1916. The next complaint, dated October, 
 1913, is from Germany. Of course no grain has been going there 
 recently. 
 
 The certificates of the inspectors of grain exchanges of the United States 
 shipping places — 
 
 And these points we leave blank, and I do not mind saj'ing what 
 they were, but not for the record. 
 
 (Thereupon Mr. Duvel made an informal statement to the com- 
 mittee. ) 
 
 Mr. Duvel (reading) : 
 
 Are considered on our side with the greatest possible distrust, as they are 
 not giving the slightest security for the good condition of the grain shipped. 
 From year to year the standard seems to have been lowered just as it suited 
 the shippers or members of the exchanges. 
 
 The following is from the Hull Corn Trade Association [reading] : 
 
 Since December, 1911, there have been practically no arrivals of American 
 maize at Hull, one of the reasons being that buyers here do not care to take the 
 risk of condition. 
 
 A formal complaint by the London Corn Trade Association, the 
 Liverpool Corn Trade Association, and the National Association of 
 British and Irish Millers, under date of November 29, 1915, reads, 
 in part, as follows. 
 
 I will say here this was a detailed series of complaints forwarded 
 to the department by Ambassador Page through the State Depart- 
 ment, covering some 30 or 40 typewritten pages. 
 
AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917. 47 
 
 For many yeni-s Buropeiin l)uyers (if United States grain sliipped from 
 Atlantic ami (iulf ports havt' expressed grave dissatisfaction with the condi- 
 tions of trading in respect of the quality of grain exported on certificate. 
 Matters have now reached a climax. * * * Large iiuantities of No. 2 hard 
 winter wheat, 1915, crop, * * * inspection, have l)een sold and shipped in 
 the last few months. A large proportion of this wheat was neither dry nor 
 •sound nor sweet, nor did it ^\eigh 59 pounds per bushel, nor even was it in any 
 degree hard on its arrival in tliis country. * * « By the later exiwrt of 
 grossly inferior and improperly graded wheat some United States shippers have 
 secured an innnediate advantage on contracts then existing, but the loss of 
 good repute is serious and deplorable. Buyers can not be fleeced with im- 
 punity. * " * It is hard to believe that even those sellers who are domi- 
 nated by consideration of merely personal advantage can be satisfied with this 
 state of affairs, and it must be in the highest degree unsatisfactory to honorable 
 traders in the States who have to suffer for the misdeeds of he unscrupulous 
 ones. 
 
 Senator Noeeis. Doctof, to what degree, if anj^, were these would 
 these difficulties arise under any inspection on account of the hardship 
 of the voyage across the ocean; for instance, the moisture? No in- 
 spection could keep out the moisture that would get into the grain 
 while it was crossing the water. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. In happens once in a while that they get damaged by 
 sea water getting into the cargo. That is usually very easily detected. 
 However, these are conditions which are due to the quality of the 
 grain at the time of shipment and, in a measure, to the condition of 
 stowage — to the position of stowage in the ship — which will be 
 referred to. 
 
 Senator Noeeis. Some of that difficulty would arise on account of 
 the shipping facilities, would it not? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. That is true, and we also cover that to some extent in 
 this statement. 
 
 Going ahead with the Liverpool matter, it says: 
 
 The want of uniformity in a system of grading must result In a lowering of 
 the value of the whole crop, for buyers naturally base their price on the poorest 
 quality they may receive. 
 
 From another, under date of September, 1915, we have: 
 
 My directors are of the opinion that a serious mistake has been made ; that 
 the wheat has been given a wrong description, the same being entirely soft ; 
 furthermore, the condition being warm, stilf, and mildewed shows that it was 
 not merchantable before shipment, even under the most superficial examination. 
 The grading certificates are consequently useless, and I am instructed to ask if 
 your department could bring its influence to bear with a view of protecting 
 buyers on this side, as If such shipments are allowed to be made buyers may be 
 ultimately compelled to decline to accept * * * inspection. 
 
 These complaints are not isolated cases. 
 
 The Chairman. Where did they come from ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. That, I think, is from Liverpool. 
 
 These complaints are not isolated cases, as I said, but are repre- 
 sentative of conditions that have prevailed for many years, and they 
 set forth clearly the lack of confidence on the part of European 
 buyers in American grain certificates. In 1906 the dissatisfaction 
 with grain-inspection certificates led to concerted action by Euro- 
 pean importers, who refused for a time to accept grain covered by 
 certificates from one of the Atlantic ports ; and again in 1911 action 
 was taken against a second Atlantic port. 
 
 That the serious complaints of the European importers are well 
 founded has been verified by representatives of the Department of 
 
48 AOEICULTUKE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1911. 
 
 Agriculture througli investigations both at the places of shipment 
 and at the European ports of entry. Much of the export grain has 
 been below the quality required for a similar grade for domestic 
 commerce. One of the large exporters, in his testimony before the 
 House Committee on Agriculture in connection with the considera- 
 tion of the United States grain-grades bill, stated that corn was 
 bought as Xo. 3 in the West and graded up as No. 2 for export, the 
 grade being raised at the seaboard^ and that occasional cars of Xo. 
 -t would be mixed in with Xo. 3 for grading out as Xo. 2. 
 
 It must be borne in mind that some of the grain which reaches 
 the European importers in a musty and heating condition is the re- 
 sult of improper stowage, delay in discharging the vessels, and other 
 causes over which the United States exporters have no control rather 
 than to a too liberal inspection. But whatever causes may be re- 
 sponsible, it is evident that after repeated experiences with gi-ain 
 which arrives in an unsatisfactory condition European importers 
 will not and do not bid as high a price for grain covered by cer- 
 tificates in which there is such a widespread lack of confidence as 
 they would be willing to bid for the same grade of grain if assured 
 that grain of the quality indicated by the certificates under the grain 
 rules would be deli\ered. It is likewise clearly evident that this 
 lack of confidence in American grain certificates is of the highest 
 importance to our grain producers in that the price they receive for 
 their grain at the country elevator is in a large measure under nor- 
 mal conditions influenced by quotations from Liverpool. 
 
 It is only fair to state, however, that all grain exported is not 
 covered by certificates issued at the seaboard, hut in some instances 
 goes forward under certificates issued at interior points. A recent 
 complaint covering such grain upon being brought to the attention 
 of the chief inspector issuing the certificates brought forth the fol- 
 lowing reply [reading] : 
 
 When grain leaves here we are responsible for same only when in its original 
 package or carrier, and as all grain for foreign countries is handled at some 
 seaport elevator and loses its identity thereby we can in no way feel ourselves 
 responsible for any deterioration or dilTerence in same. 
 
 In another instance the same inspector wrote [reading] : 
 
 I don't know what port that gi-ain was shipped from, but if you will look into 
 the matter you will find that after the grain leaves our State and arrives in 
 tlicise eastern ports it is then mixed with grain there. * * » i think you 
 will find that most of those elevator concerns mix our wheat with theirs and 
 still use our certificates. 
 
 Another chief inspector in a different market in another State 
 makes this same serious charge as to tampering with grain at transfer 
 points and states in substance that they are not accountable for con- 
 dition or quality of shipments after the grain leaves the point within 
 the State where inspected, which amounts practically to an admis- 
 sion that such certificates are unreliable when they reach Eureopean 
 buyers. 
 
 It is extremely unfortunate that there should exist any basis for 
 belief in foreign countries that conditions in the American grain 
 trade are in any measure responsible for unsatisfactory deliveries of 
 oui' grain in foreign markets. It is even more deplorable that there 
 should be any basis, if such really exists, for claims that inspection 
 certificates of interior markets are made to cover other grain after 
 
AGRICULTURE APPEOPKIATION BILL, 1917. 49 
 
 mixing at the seaboard or transfer points. These conditions are in 
 a very large measure due to the lack of uniformity in the rules for 
 the grading of grain in different markets, as well as the lack of 
 uniformity in their application in the same market in different sea- 
 sons and even at different times during the same season. For ex- 
 ample, the quality of wheat covered by a certificate of No. 2 hard , 
 or of oats by a certificate of No. 2 white clipped of the crop of 1915, 
 has been distinctly inferior to the quality of the same grades of the 
 crop of 1914, notwithstanding the fact that the published rules re- 
 main the same. 
 
 It is believed that the evils pointed out could be largely removed 
 by the establishment of uniform standards for grain and a system of 
 inspection based on such standards, applicable to interstate and 
 foreign commerce, over which the States have no authority. This 
 is contemplated by the provisions of the United States grain grades 
 bill, which, incorporated in the agricultural appropriation bill, has 
 passed the House of Representatives and is pending in the Senate. 
 
 The Chairman. You say Canadian No. 1 northern and No. 1 
 northern in the United States. Are those grades supposed to repre- 
 sent the same character of grain? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. They are supposed to represent the same character of 
 grain. 
 
 The Chairman. And the market in Liverpool ranges from 2 to 4 
 cents in favor of the Canadian ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Ranges from 2 to 4 cents in favor of the Canadian, 
 depending on the price of wheat. 
 
 Senator Norris. What are those two grades? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Canadian No. 1 northern and our No. 1 northern. 
 That applies to all their grades, right down the line. In other words, 
 Canadian No. 3 northern usually brings about the same price as 
 United States No. 1 northern. 
 
 The Chairman. In the Liverpool market? 
 
 Mr. DtrvEL. In the Liverpool market. 
 
 Senator Norris. That comes about because Canada has a system of 
 inspection that the European buyer has confidence in ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Canada has a system of inspection that the European 
 buyers have confidence in. They have Government inspection there, 
 and then they have some assurance that the quality is going to be 
 uniform. 
 
 There is another condition that prevails somewhat. We have 
 going out from our ports a great deal of Canadian wheat, which 
 goes through in bond, which, so far as I know, goes through unre- 
 stricted as No. 1, Manitoba in bond. We also haye going through 
 this country, on American certificate, No. 1 northern wheat, Manitoba. 
 
 Senator Norris. How do they get that ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. The situation of that is this: The European buyer in 
 the majority of cases thinks that he is buying wheat on No. 1 north- 
 ern Canadian inspection, when, as a matter of fact, he is buying 
 Canadian wheat of the lower grades mixed together at American 
 ports, and exported under a basis of No. 1 Manitoba, leaving the 
 impression apparently open that it is " Canadian inspection," which, 
 of course, it is not. 
 
 The Chairman. In Canada do they have a general inspection for 
 the whole Dominion or does each Province have inspection ? 
 466.5.5— c—1fi d 
 
50 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. The grain inspection is confined primarily to the Win- 
 nipeg area; that is, to the grain belt or what is called the western 
 grain belt. 
 
 The Chairman. Then it is provincial inspection rather than for 
 the Dominion? 
 
 Mr. Du^'EL. Yes, sir; it is practically for the Dominion, but it is 
 confined almost entirely to the sections of Manitoba, Alberta, and 
 Saskatchewan. That is covered in one spction. 
 
 The Chairman. What I want to get at is, did the Parliament of 
 the Dominion, acting for all the Provinces, pass the law. or did each 
 of these Provinces pass its own law ? 
 
 Mr. Du\'EL. As I understand it, the Parliament for the Dominion 
 as a whole; yes sir; but that the law affects primarily the western 
 grain belt — ^the three Pro\'inces in the grain belt. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. Doctor, the matter you gave us is very in- 
 teresting, and, of course, very important. I do not know whether I 
 want to ask you the direct question to bring you in such open conflict 
 
 with the testimony that Mr. gave. You probably read 
 
 their statements? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I understand their statements ; I underst-and their atti- 
 tude; I appreciate their attitude. 
 
 Senator "Wadsworth. They say, for instance 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I want to say in connection with that, that we have 
 been in touch with the members of the European grain-trade or- 
 ganizations, and they have urged in every way for the past 15 years 
 that some action be taken so that they can get certificates on which 
 they can rely. The European buyer is in this situation: They buy 
 American grain because they have to, and they buy just as little as 
 they can get along with. A great many dealers we found over there, 
 in investigating this matter, absolutely refuse to buj' American grain 
 when they can possibly get it from any other source. 
 
 The Chairman. I think it would be well, in view of the question 
 Senator Wadsworth asked as to the refusal of the foreign markets to 
 accept our cotton, to explain the different methods of transacting 
 business with reference to grain. They buy, as I understand it, on the 
 certificates? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Cotton, as I understand it, is bought subject to arbi- 
 tration in Liverpool or London. The grain going into Europe from 
 South America, our greatest competitor, or from South Africa, or 
 from Eoumania or Eussia, under normal conditions, is all subject to 
 arbitration in London on the London corn-trade contract: but the 
 .Vmericans occupy a most advantageous position that they are able to 
 sell, they have been able to get into the contracts, owing to our great 
 supply of grain in years ]iast. to sell only on American certificates 
 final. That is a decided mlvantago to this country, and an advantage 
 that it is of the utmost importance that we retain, but we can not 
 retain it if these abuses are allowed to continue. 
 
 Senator "\^'AI)swoRTH. You think the privilege is threatened? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. It is undoubtedly threatened, as brought out in this 
 statement. For a time European importers refused to accojit certifi- 
 cates, in 190(1, fnim one of our export niarkets, and again in 1011 
 boycotted another grain market, absolutely refusing to buy on cer- 
 tificate. 
 
AGEICULTUEE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917. 51 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. Has the department taken this matter up 
 before this with the produce exchanges on the seaboard ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes, sir. We haA'e discussed that and at one time had 
 a hearing. After our investigations we asked the exporters to come 
 to Washington, and went over with tliem the results of our investi- 
 gations on this matter, showing the conditions. I do not want to 
 leave the impression with the committee for one minute that existing 
 conditions are due to dishonest inspection or dishonest inspectors, 
 because I believe the grain inspectors of this countr}' are competent 
 men, and I believe they are just as honest as any group of men we 
 have in the country, but this entire situatiori comes about mainly by 
 the keen competition between these various markets gradually forc- 
 ing the standard down and down until it reaches the lowest possible 
 point. 
 
 Senator Norris. You still think that it is honest inspection, if they 
 certify that No. 2 is Xo. 1 — do you count that honest ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. That is, as inspection goes. [Laughter.] Here is the 
 situation, as I brought out yesterday in connection with the water- 
 ing of oats for the domestic trade two years ago, a practice which 
 for a time had become almost universal. 
 
 Senator Noeris. That was not honest, was it? 
 
 Mr. Dtjvel. I can not say that it was. 
 
 Senator Noeris. Well, you ought not to call it that, then. 
 . The Chairman. I would like to say, Senator Wadsworth, that this 
 committee, through a subcommittee, had a hearing on behalf of the 
 exporters and at their request. That ^vas, I think last year, or the 
 year before ; "and I will get the clerk to give you a copy if we have 
 any on hand. It was a very interesting hearing. 
 
 Mr. DtrvEL. But what I mean by that, Senator Norris, is this: I 
 do not believe there is any inspector that you could go to and say, 
 "Here, I have a big cargo of 250,000 bushels of grain going out. 
 Here is $100 and I want to have you pass that." I do not think 
 there is one you could induce to accept such a bribe. 
 
 Senator Noeeis. That is not the only way to be dishonest; there 
 are many other ways. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. The important thing we want in the question of uni- 
 form grades, I believe, is that we ought to clearly define those grades. 
 Export grades, for example, provide that No. 2 corn must be " rea- 
 sonably dry," and our investigations show that "reasonably dry" 
 means corn anywhere from 14 to 22 per cent of moisture. I do not 
 believe there is anybody who knows anything about grain who would 
 contend for one minute that corn with 20 to 22 per cent moisture is 
 reasonably dry, because it is just as sure to be musty and out of 
 condition when it gets over to the European consumer as anything 
 possibly can be. 
 
 I will say further in that same connection, in some of these va- 
 rious complaints that are referred to here, we found No. 2 wheat 
 under certificate for export containing more than 15 per cent mois- 
 ture. A . number of cars, representing some 70,000 bushels that 
 were examined, showed an average of 15Jjj per cent moisture, and 
 the wheat in 6 of those 15 cars was musty and sour when the cars 
 arrived at the seaport under certificate of No. 2, but they went out 
 
 i> L 
 
52 AGRICULTURE APPBOPEIATION BILL, 1917. 
 
 exactly in that same way. The highest moisture content in any of the 
 cars was 16.5 per cent. Those are actual facts. 
 
 Senator Wadswoeth. In that connection, Doctor, can you tell us 
 what effect the climatic conditions have on the seaboard — we will 
 say, comparing the northern ports with southern ports — as to the 
 degree of moisture? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. The northern ports, of course, have an advantage, 
 owing to more favorable climate and also the question of shorter 
 haul. For example, in the case of corn — that is, the corn that goes 
 from the Gulf ports — it will average around 1 per cent or a trifle 
 under 1 per cent less moisture than what goes out from the Atlantic 
 seaboard. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. There is less moisture from the southern 
 ports than the northern ports? 
 
 Mr. DuA'EL. Yes, sir; due to climatic conditions, and the longer 
 haul, they must get it out lower from the Gulf in order to get it to 
 Europe in about the same condition in competition with Atlantic 
 ports. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. They must "get it out low^er." What do 
 you mean by that? 
 
 Mr. DrrvEL. They must ha\e the corn of lower moisture content; 
 that is, if they shipped from a Gulf port with the same moisture 
 content in corn that they do from the Atlantic ports, as a result of 
 their longer haul and the higher temperature of the corn at the time 
 they load, their corn would be in worse condition by the time it 
 reached Liverpool or London and, of course, they would lose the 
 business. So, to offset this condition, they artificially dry more of 
 their corn in order to get the moisture content down a little lower 
 than is necessary on the Atlantic ports. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. Is it the purpose of the department, in the 
 enforcement of this law, if it is enacted, to enforce the same standards 
 of moisture content for southern and northern points? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes, sir; that is the idea, to have a vmiform standard 
 for all points. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. But, when the grain reaches the other side 
 it will not necessarily have the same moisture content ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. That is, for the same gi*ades it would; yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. I understood you a moment ago to say that 
 the length of the sea voyage and the climatic conditions might change 
 the moisture content? 
 
 Mr. Du\EL. It is not a question of change in moisture in transit. 
 The point has been raised that tliis grain may absorb moisture in 
 transit, but actual observations do not bear out that statement. We 
 do find this sometimes, when corn deteriorates and gets out of con- 
 dition, the percentage of moisture increases, but at the same time you 
 are losing weight all the time. In other word.*, it is just like pulling 
 up a bunch of weeds and throwing them in your back yard; they 
 are fairly diy when you put them there, but when they start to decay 
 thoy are very soft and wet; and we find the same thing in corn. 
 AVhen it .stiirts to decay, the percentage of moisture in any given 
 hundred pounds increases, but at the same time you have lost a 
 considerable weight, due to eyaporation; that is, we have these ex- 
 tremes. That .'sample we brought in here yesterday, for instance, will 
 
AGRICULTURE APPBOPEIATION BILL, W11. 53 
 
 show that. This represents a sample of oats that was stored in a bin 
 in Illinois last August, and it was in this condition when taken out 
 in February — absolutely black and charred. We very seldom find 
 such extreme cases as this, but we do find lots of grain getting into 
 the European ports, based on our examination of approximately 200 
 cargoes, that is as black as mahogany, or just as black as the colors 
 we find on the edge of this committee table, due to heating and fer- 
 mentation; and at some stage in the deterioration you will find a 
 higher percentage of moisture, but when that sample burns out it 
 will be dry. 
 
 As another indication, those two samples in the pans [indicating 
 samples in pans upon the committee table] represent No. 2 white 
 clipped oats going to export. One is Canadian and one is American ; 
 and I think if any of the members of the committee will examine the 
 poor sample they will agree that it is not in any sense a Nq. 2 white 
 clipped oats. 
 
 Senator Noeris. This sample here [indicating] is not No. 2 ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Not by any means. 
 
 Senator Noeris. It has been graded that way, has it ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Export inspection. 
 
 Senator Wadswoeth. It is plain to be seen that the Canadian sam- 
 ple is the better of the two ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Noeeis. What would this American sample be. Doctor, 
 supposing it had been properly graded ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I think that you might possibly squeeze it into No. 4. 
 
 Senator Brady. It is not oats that should be exported at all? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I would not say that ; but it ought to be exported for 
 what it is, because when you export No. 2, and the Liverpool quota- 
 tions on No. 2 white clipped oats are based on such inferior quality, 
 it reflects right back, and that fixes the price in Chicago and to our 
 producers to a ^'ery large extent. 
 
 The Chairman. And the farmer suffers as a consequence? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. When the farmer delivers grain at the coiintry ele- 
 vator, the price secured must necessarily be based on the price on the 
 primary market. 
 
 • Senator Wadswoeth. Doctor, it is your opinion that the enforce- 
 ment of the law proposed will not operate to the disadvantage of 
 any one particular portion of our seacoast as an exporting point? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Absolutely not. That point has been brought out by 
 the exporters, especially of the northern markets, that it will be to 
 their disadvantage. This is the situation, as I see it, that the north- 
 ern exporter can export grain with a little higher moisture than the 
 southern exporter, because he has the advantage of a shorter haul 
 and a little better climate. The exporters take this position: That 
 there is only one grade that they can export, and that is No. 2 ; that 
 is the position they take when they make that argument that the 
 European buyer will not buy anything else except No. 2 corn. The 
 European buyer knows what he is getting under the present condi- 
 tions; and we believe that when he more thoroughly understands the 
 situation, when we get grades properly established under some 
 Federal supervision, that he will buy a No. 3 or a No. 4, because he 
 is going to get it at the same price he now pays for a so-called No. 2. 
 
54 AGBICULTUEE APPKOPEIATION BILL, 1917. 
 
 Senator Bkady. That is what I meant by asking that question, 
 Doctor. At the present time the most of the oats exported is Xo. 2 ? . 
 
 Mr. Du\EL. That is the only export grade, Xo. 2. 
 
 The CnAiR3iA>,'. And they work all in to that they can? 
 
 ■Mr. DuvEL. Yes, sir; if it goes to exiDort. 
 
 Senator Beady. And most of it is 3 and 4 '. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Most of it. 
 
 Senator Bkady. Iteverting just a moment : We are considering here 
 two questions, one Iniown by the short title of the " United States 
 grain-grades act " and the other by the short title "" United States 
 warehouse act.'' If we do not pass part B, the United States grain- 
 grade act, there would be no use in passing C of the United States 
 warehouse act. would there? 
 
 Mr. DuYEL. Well, no; I would not want to say that, because the 
 United States warehouse act 
 
 Senator Brady'. How would you grade this stuff and put it into the 
 warehouse ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEi . It provides in section 19 of the warehouse act that they 
 can fix grades for the purpose of covering a grain that goes into one 
 of those licensed warehouses. 
 
 Senator Beady. I understand that quite well, but would not that 
 be the warehouseman's own grade ? There i> nothing to regulate the 
 grade that he shall say it is at the present moment '. 
 
 Mr. Du\EL. That would be under license. The department, before 
 it went into that car, would designate someboch' to grade it. 
 
 The Chairman. The grading is done in part B? 
 
 ]\Ir. Dr\EL. Tliat is correct. The two ought to go together, surely. 
 
 Senator Beady'. That is the position I am taking. If you knock 
 out part B we might as well knock out part C. 
 
 Mr. DrvEL. I do not believe that would necessarily follow. If 
 part B was eliminated and part C was enacted, then before that grain 
 could go into one of these licensed warehouses it would have to be 
 inspected by a licensed inspector, and in that case they would have to 
 determine upon some grade^the department would have to figure 
 some grade for that purpose — either take the present commercial grade 
 and put their interpretation on it or fix some grade to cover the graiu 
 going into the licensed warehouse, but would not affect shipments in 
 interstate commerce. 
 
 Mr. Brand. I would like to answer that for Senator Brady. The 
 two bills are not interdependent. 
 
 Grades would necessarily be established for the purposes of the 
 warehouse act for both interstate and intrastate use by the licensed 
 warehouses, but no one need apply for a license who does not wish 
 to, but it would apply to both shipments in interstate and intrastate 
 commerce if they so desired, antl in consequence the grades that are 
 adopted would be adopted solely for the purpose of the warehouse 
 act and would have no application beyond that. 
 
 It would be a step in the direction of this bill without going as far 
 as the grain-grades act goes; in other words, a small step in the same 
 dii'ection. 
 
 Senator Brady. It looks like going into an aiitoniobile with only 
 tlirec wheels. 
 
 Mr. Beam.. If this should pass, both should. 
 
AGBICrLTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 191'7. 55 
 
 Senator Brady. One depending on the other. 
 
 Senator Shafroth. All of this is good, in my judgment. 
 
 Senator Johnsois; of South Dakota. I would just like to ask one 
 question in order to'understand this. The different elevators m small 
 towns could each or all apply for a license under this bill, could they 
 not — the ordinary grain buyer in the ordinary grain elevator? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. That is, for the inspectorship? 
 
 Senator Johnson of South Dakota. Yes. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Johnson of South Dakota. This is the question. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. The -Secretary is authorized under this bill to issue 
 a license to anyone who is competent to inspect. 
 
 Senator Johnson of South Dakota. He need not necessarily have 
 any great warehouse, if he has a common, ordinary elevator and buys 
 grain ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Brady. He can have one elevator or three or four ? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. If he wants to maintain the expense of that inspec- 
 tion, yes, sir ; and if he is doing interstate business. 
 
 Senator Beady. There is no intent that there shall be a monopoly 
 of warehouse business by any one man? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. No, sir ; but the greatest possible freedom. 
 
 It was brbught out here yesterday, when the question was raised 
 as to the American Society of Equity and their attitude on this 
 proposed legislation, as representing the fariners. I hurriedly se- 
 cured copy this morning of the Equity News, issue of January 1, 
 1916, which shows that at the National Convention of the American 
 Society of Equity, Wausau, Wis., December 14-17, 1915, the fol- 
 lowing resolution was unanimously adopted [reading] : 
 
 We recommend the enactment of Federal legislation which will provide for a 
 system of Federal insiDection and standardization and grading of grain. 
 
 It was stated here yesterday that that was the only real farmers' 
 organization in the country. 
 
 In addition to that, every farmers' cooperative grain elevator in 
 the United States and the National Council of Farmers' Cooperative 
 Companies, which I believe to be representative — there are between 
 200,000 and 300,000 farmers connected with those cooperative or- 
 ganizations, and they are distinctly in favor of some Federal regu- 
 lation to get this situation straightened out. 
 
 Here is Mr. Shorthill's attitude on that, before the House Com- 
 mittee on Agriculture, during the hearings on the Moss bill last 
 year, which, as Mr. Eubey said this morning, passed with only 17 
 dissenting' votes and 221 votes for the bill, and the vote on the bill 
 as it passed the House at the present session of Congress, as we 
 understand the record, was practically unanimous and without roll 
 call. 
 
 The Chairman. The amendment to this bill we are now consider- 
 ing? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. Yes. But Mr. Shorthill in his testimony before this 
 committeer 
 
 The Chairman. Who is he ? 
 Mr. DuvEL. Mr. Shorthill was at that time president of the Na- 
 tional Council of Farmers' Cooperative Companies, and is at the 
 
56 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917. 
 
 ( 
 
 ]>resent tiiuo president of the Nebraska Farmers Grain Dealers' and 
 Live Stock Association — this is his statement [reading] : 
 
 <"Hir idea of efficiency of Krain insuectioii under tlie various systems that 
 we miglit have in this ((juntry you will find to be in entire conformity with the 
 ideas of this foi)miitf<'c. I am also iih^iised to l^now that they have been borne 
 out by a ver\- great majority of the A\itnesses who have appeared before this 
 committee at tliesc lieariufrs. and I do not thinlc that we have very much of 
 a different idea as to wliat ouglit to )]c done, but there may be a difference 
 of ideas as to what metliod shoidil lie pursued in the accomplishing of those 
 results. ( )ur idea of the efficiency of inspection is just this, that the least 
 efficient inspection will lie the ins|iection by the buyer, as illustrated by the 
 board of trade inspections and organizations of that character, because of 
 their limited territory of influence. By tliat I mean that the inspector is under 
 the influcni-e of those buyers in that he is hired by them; his salary is paid 
 by tliem, and he is at all time.s where lie is subject to their influence in one 
 way and another. The next step for improvement is this : We believe as a 
 general rule that State inspection has improved the service, simply because It 
 has enlarged the territory of influence. It is my opinion that Federal super- 
 \'ision will still enlarge that territory of Influence so that we believe that 
 Federal supervision would be yet better than Inspection by a number of dif- 
 ferent States. I am speaking, of course, of the interstate grain only, and that 
 is what I have in mind here. We believe that the most efficient of all would be 
 the real Federal in.speetion of the grain, the actual inspection of it. As 
 country .shippers of grain and as growers of grain, these people, I think, have 
 no desire for anything else than the best service that they can get, and I 
 believe that they are perfectly willing to pay what It is necessary that they 
 should pay to got it. 
 
 And further answering questions, by Mr. Moss [reading] : 
 
 Mr. Moss. I un<lerstood froni^ your position tlmt you are appearing here 
 favoring Federal inspection? 
 
 Mr. Shobthit.l. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Moss. But you are not opposing Federal supervision? 
 
 Mr. Shoiithii.l. I think I stated my position very clearly in giving our 
 Ideas, our conception of the different methods of inspection, in which I said 
 that I thought Federal supervision wf)uld be superior to present conditions. 
 But we prefer Federal inspection to any other. 
 
 Jlr. Moss. I thought it was a fair interpretation, from what you said that. 
 Inasmuch as you have said Federal supervision would improve present con- 
 ditions, you are not opposing the idea <il' improving present conditions? 
 
 Jlr. Stiokthill, No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Moss. Then you are not opposing Federal supervision? 
 
 Jfr. Shobthili,. No. sir ; we are not taking as radical a stand as that. 
 
 Mr. Moss. From your point of view you think Federal inspection will be 
 a greater improvement than Federal supervision? 
 
 Mr. Shoethill. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Moss. So that it is fair to say that while favoring Federal inspection, 
 you are not opposing Federal supervision? 
 
 Mr. Shorthitx. That is right. 
 
 Senator Brady. That was Congressman IMoss from Indiana? 
 
 Mr. DmT5L. Coiiiiressman Moss of Indiana. 
 
 Mr. Funk, in his testimony before that same committee 
 
 The Chairm.\x. Who is Mr. Funk? 
 
 Mr. Dm'EL. Mr. Funk is a member of the Public Utilities Commis- 
 sion of the State of Illinois, and being a farmer member of that com- 
 mittee has large1.\' taken chaipe of the grain-inspection department. 
 Here is what he .sa.vs. 
 
 The Ci-iATinr.vN. ITe is a noted corn producer? 
 
 Mr. Du\'Ki.. He is a noted corn producer, connected with Funk 
 Bros., of central Illinois. 
 
 Senator W.vrhex. Is he connected in any manner with the Inter- 
 national Harvester Co.? 
 
AGRICULTUKE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917. 57 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. No, sir; not that Funk. 
 Here is his statement [reading] : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am a meuil)er of the Shite public utilities 
 commission, which has succeeded to the railroad and warehouse commission in 
 having supervision of the inspection of grain in Illinois. 
 
 I am here on ray own initiative, because I believe in Federal regulation of 
 some sort in the matter of the grading of grain to bring about uniform- 
 ity. * * * 
 
 I may say also that I am interested in the producing end. I have something 
 like 1,200 acres. of corn, 400 acres of oats, and, I think, 100 acres of wheat, so I 
 know the desirability of uniform grades of grain from the producers' stand- 
 point. 
 
 I can assure you that Illinois desires and will accept Government super- 
 
 vision. 
 
 * * 
 
 We welcome supervision. I think it would be a double check. We would be 
 willing to concede the right to have these Government supervisors as the board 
 of appeals. 
 
 Senator Beady. Doctor, our chairman yesterdaj^ requested Dr. 
 Brand to put into the record a list of the organizations that liad ad- 
 vised your department that they were in favor of some such legisla- 
 tion as we are passing. There seems to be a confusion in the minds of 
 some as to which are the real producers and which are the men who 
 are engaged only in buying and selling. Is there not some way that 
 you can separate those different companies and organizations and 
 show which' ones are organized entirely by the farmers ? 
 
 Mr. Dxj^TiL,. In addition to the farmers' cooperative elevator com- 
 panies, we have the American Society of Equity, and these organiza- 
 tions are as nearly representative of the farmers as we can get to it 
 in this country. I will submit a statement showing a full list of those 
 for yesterday's record. 
 
 Mr. Brand. Senator Brady, everyone of those farmers' cooperative 
 elevators are made up of actual grain growers. They are made up of 
 actual grain growers who have banded themselves together into co- 
 operative associations, just the way your fruit growers do ; they are 
 the actual producers. 
 
 Senator Brady. That is what I believed, but I wanted to know 
 there was no question about it. 
 
 Mr. Brand. Senator Johnson understands. He is acquainted with 
 Mr. Bell and others. They are the actual growers. I have met with 
 them in their national association meetings, and I know it to be a 
 fact ; it is not open to any doubt. 
 
 Mr. DtTVEL. There are 250,000 or 300,000 farmers who, as Dr. 
 Brand says, are actual growers, who make up the cooperative elevator 
 companies. 
 
 Mr. Brand. And they handle $400,000,000 worth of gram a year. 
 
 Senator Beady. I heard the question put directly to you, and you 
 replied that you could not put your hand on a single farmer who 
 favored this measure. As I understand it, all of these farmers, these 
 260,000, through their organization, favor it. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. What I had in mind in reply to the question was the 
 individual farmers writing, and they do not do that, because they 
 act through their organizations. • . . 
 
 Senator Johnson of South Dakota. The cooperative associations 
 in our section of the State, or a great many of them, favor full Fed- 
 eral inspections. 
 
58 AGEICULTUEE APPEOPKIATION BILL, 191'7. 
 
 Senator Thompson. The way you answered that question would be 
 very misleading in the record. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. That is true. Most of the farmers belong to coop- 
 erative companies. There are two cooperative companies which 
 have indorsed this particular measure under discussion, the Ohio 
 association last February and the Indiana association in March, 1916. 
 
 Mr. Bramd. Senator Brady, I was asked by the Tri-State Grain 
 Growers" Association, which includes Minnesota, Xorth and South 
 Dakota, to speak before their annual convention at Fargo, and after 
 the convention I was waited upon by a committee of the American 
 Society of Equity, that has been mentioned here, and they stated that 
 they vvanted and were going to insist upon Federal inspection. I 
 told them very frankly that as I understood the temper of Congress 
 it would be impossible to get any such thing done; but they said, 
 "That is what we want, and that is what they all want; they want 
 that and nothing else." Nevertheless this is a great, big, long step 
 in that direction. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I want to read here from an address of Secretary A. X. 
 Steinhart. of the Farmers Grain Dealers' Association of lUinois, 
 under date of February 10. 1915. Mr. Steinhart, as I understand, is 
 a farmer himself but secretary of that association. His statement 
 is in connection with this legislation, and also wilh the new corn- 
 grade law [reading] : 
 
 The new corn grades have been estuljlished ami no one has been hurt. Grade 
 alone can ncit change values on the same class of grain, no matter by what num- 
 ber or name designated. The new grades have, however, brought a concerted 
 effort on the part of grain growers to market a better and cleaner corn. This 
 will tend to keep the market clear of a glut of dirty, low-grade stuff. Every- 
 body will benefit, a great loss and waste will be eliminated, and the general 
 price will be better. 
 
 I want to say in that connection that two or three years ago the 
 amount of low-grade grain that went into the Chicago market was 
 such that the price was depressed from 12 to 14 cents per bushel; 
 and that is one of the things we want to remedy. We find this con- 
 dition in Illinois now where they understand these grades ; the farm- 
 ers and the ele^•ator men are working together. The farmers are 
 finding out what their grain will grade before they deliver it to the 
 country elevator. If it is not dry enough so as to come into the re- 
 quirements of Xo. 3 the farmer says. " I am going to hold it for a 
 while until it does get into Xo. 3." "We also find that the farmei's are 
 cleaning their grain so it will meet the requirements, and by getting 
 it into a higher grade get' a better price. 
 
 The CiiAimrAN. Heretofore they got penalized? 
 
 jNIr. DivEL. Because the farmers did not know what the grades 
 were. They simply sold corn. Xow, the farmers know what grades 
 are, and tliey are trying to meet them. 
 
 It further says [reading] : 
 
 What we now need is Federal inspection to determine the grades in all 
 cases, a method which will place men in charge of tliis work that need not 
 necessarily be residents of the cities in wliich terminals are located, men who 
 are free from all local inllnpnce and who are beholden only to your Uncle 
 Samuel for their places and their action, such men as we have in the Postal 
 and IJeveniie Service, \\'hen this sort of inspection is in vogue there will be a 
 chance that pure grain will go into the public warehouse under the same grade 
 at whicli it goes (nit. and also that the grade will be as nearly uniform at all 
 
AGEIOULTUEE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917. 59 
 
 markets as human jiulgment can determine. Your association, througli the 
 national council, is working for this sort of inspertion. They are going to get 
 ""rjih '!"' ^'^f' ^''^^ »s«"Ciation adopted the following resolution : 
 ihat we favor the Federal inspection of grain that we mav have uniform 
 inspection of grain throughout the country." 
 
 There is another situation, and it is with respect to the southern 
 buyers. This is their attitude: Before we fixed these corn grades 
 we presented them for thorough discussion at a meeting in New 
 Orleans, held under the auspices of tlie Grain Dealers' National 
 Association; at a second meeting at Des Moines, Iowa, held under 
 the auspices of the Farmers' National Cooperative Companies and 
 gave opportunity here in Washington for a third meeting for the 
 benefit of the eastern men who did not care to make that long trip 
 to the other points; and following that was a hearing before the 
 Secretary of Agriculture covering these various points. At the 
 New Orleans hearing Mr. H. B. Dorsey, Fort Worth, Tex., secretary 
 of the Texas Grain Dealers' Association, made this statement: 
 
 Mr. DoRSEY, of Fort Worth, Tex. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I want to 
 say while this gentleman from Omaha is here, who said we were willing to 
 buy, that it is because we have had to have it. They say they find the southern 
 trade are willing to buy, but they were never more mistaken in their lives, 
 We buy because we have to. We do not buy this corn because it suits us. 
 * * * This corn goes to Texas under the present system and it is stored In 
 the bins. Lots of times we can not get it to the mills. It is spoiled before 
 it gets there. A farmer buys his corn and stacks it up and borrows money 
 from the bank, and in two or three weeks it is as black as the gentleman's hat, 
 
 That is, the Texas dealers buy, and they distribute to the farmers 
 in certain sections. 
 
 Senator Wadswoeth. Doctor, I want to ask one question, at the 
 risk of repetition, but I asked Mr. Vrooman the question in respect to 
 the probability of the securing licensed inspectors in those parts of 
 the country which would not have local inspection under State regu- 
 lations, and Mr. Vrooman said probably you could enlighten us on 
 that question better than he could. 
 
 Mr. DtrvEL. Of course, under this proposition the Federal law 
 would provide that a license can be issued to anyone who is com- 
 petent to inspect. Of course, at the local elevators where the farmer 
 delivers his grain in wagon loads there is no legislation that Congress 
 can make, as I understand the situation, that can reach that particu- 
 lar individual. It is purely a State proposition, and it could not be 
 reached even through Federal inspection. 
 
 Senator Wadswoeth. And in the case of States that have no State 
 inspectors, do you think they would have to wait then for public 
 sentiment or pressure of some sort? 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. They will still get the benefit of it, because they will 
 know the grades, and the buyer at the country elevator will know 
 the grade better because the grade will be clearly defined and fixed. 
 That has been the trouble with the present system. 
 
 Mr. Beand. I wonder if I could not make a statement, and possibly 
 clear that up. I listened to the question asked Mr. Vrooman. The 
 point is this : Any person who proves his competence to grade grain 
 under the standard established by the Federal Government is en- 
 titled to a license. If there is a man in the Panhandle near Amarillo, 
 or any other place, who shows his competence, he is entitled to a 
 license. Then I, as a grain grower in that country, if I have a 
 
60 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1911. 
 
 wagon load or a train load of grain, can go and get that licensed 
 grader to grade my grain, and it has the same effect as if inspected 
 m interstate commerce. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. What are the fees? 
 
 Mr. Brand. The only fee the Government would charge would be 
 the nominal licensed fee. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. I mean the fee for the grain inspector. 
 
 Mr. Brand. That would depend upon local conditions and upon 
 the rules and regulations made by the Secretary, who would be in a 
 position to prevent any exorbitant charging by licensed graders. 
 
 It might happen that a man was conducting another line of busi- 
 ness. He may have moved in from Minnesota or Iowa and located in 
 the Panhandle and be thoroughly competent as a grain man. He 
 may have been in the grain business conducting his own elevator. He 
 would be entitled to a license. He would charge 50 cents, $1.50, or 
 possibly up to $3 to grade a car of grain, and it would bring right 
 home to the Panhandle farmer an absolutely reliable grain grader, 
 a condition that could not be attained under Federal inspection, be- 
 cause the Government could not afford to put men in all the little 
 markets in the United States. 
 
 The Chairman. There would be no necessitj- -for that unless local 
 business was great enough. 
 
 Senator Warrex. What is the obligation of that appointee to the 
 Government, if any? 
 
 Mr. Braxd. He is dependent upon the Government for his license, 
 and if that license were revoked it would not only tend to disgrace 
 him but tend to deprive him of any opportunity to earn. 
 
 Senator Warrex. Of course he would not be vmder bond, and it 
 Would be a matter of honor whether he would be partial or im- 
 partial. 
 
 Mr. Braxd. He may be under bond under the law ; that is safe- 
 guarded, I think. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. Is that in the hands of the Secretary, the 
 imposing of a bond? 
 
 Mr. Braxd. It would be. Under the warehouse act it is not. 
 There the bond is compulsory, but under the grain-gi-ades act, as 
 I recall the language, it would be. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. Of course, in order to bring out this latent 
 talent for grading and inspection of the grain in any locality which 
 has not had inspectors prior to the enactment of this law. it would 
 be necessary to make the fees sufficiently large to attract men to do 
 that work. 
 
 The Chairman. They would not have to do it unless the business 
 would warrant it. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. It would become a business necessity. It 
 may be that this bill will prevent the shipment of grain in interstate 
 commerce M'ithout insi^ection. 
 
 Mr. Brand. The economic advantage of having grain inspected 
 by licensed graders will swamp the department with requests for 
 licenses and showings of competency. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. Just as I say, it would become a business 
 necessity for grain to be inspected before it starts on its interstate 
 travels. 
 
AGEICULTXTEE APPEOPEIATION BILL, 1917. 61 
 
 The Chairman. But arising out of the advantages and pressures 
 of the business. 
 
 Mr. Brand. They will all want it. 
 
 Senator Wadsavorth. I do not think it is fair to say they need not 
 do it unless they want to. 
 
 The Chairman. What I meant was there was not any legal com- 
 pulsion; it might be an economic necessity. 
 
 Mr. Brand. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 The Chairman. I suppose it will pay its way. 
 
 Senator Wadswoeth. That being admitted, then it will become 
 necessary for the Secretary of Agriculture, in his regulations, to 
 permit the charging of a fee by these licensed inspectors sufficiently 
 large to make it a paramount business proposition for them. 
 
 Mr. Brand. I think it would be a natural result. They are not 
 going to work for nothing. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. Of course not; that is' the point. I just 
 wanted the opinion of the department on that point. I am trying 
 to find out where you are going to get voluntary inspectors in re- 
 gions of the country where inspectors haVe never existed. 
 
 Mr. Brand. They are going to collect fees. It is to be expected, 
 and it is quite proper to do so. That is now done in the trade. It 
 anyone wishes expert service they pay for it, and they would ex- 
 pect to pay under the law. 
 
 Senator Warren. Along that line may I ask another question; 
 What implement is necessary for an inspector to have to test scien- 
 tifically as to moisture and quality, etc., of the grain ? 
 
 Mr. Brand. A good pair of eyes and a Duvel moisture tester. 
 And this talk about not having a moisture qualification included in 
 grading will not pass at all. You have got to have a moisture re- 
 quirement. The whole export business depends upon the amount of 
 moisture in the grain, and there is no use attempting to ship grain 
 that has too much moistnire. 
 
 Senator Warren. And those would be standardized instruments 
 furnished by the Government? 
 
 Mr. Brand. They would not be furnished. The moisture tester 
 was invented by Dr. Duvel and turned over to the people. They are 
 manufactured without any payment to patentees of royalties. 
 
 The Chairman. How has it worked with corn ? Are there a good 
 many people qualified to grade? 
 
 Mr. Brand. They are doing that through regular board of trade 
 organizations and otherwise A'oluntarily. 
 
 The Chairman. I think there is one other point there. 
 
 Mr. Brand. There is this point I thought might be mentioned in 
 this connection: Harking back for the moment to the cotton and 
 comparing it with the grain. In grain Minneapolis is the controlling ' 
 cash market of the world. In gram, again, Chicago is the controlling 
 future market of the world. The grain trade and foodstuffs trade 
 on this side of the water has been so strong that they absolutely con- 
 trol, and they sell on certificate final because of their strength. 
 
 In cotton the economic position of the farmer of the South has not 
 been such that he has been able to assert himself, and the absolute 
 necessities of the world have not been such that he was able to control 
 the marketing of cotton as the marketing of grain has been controlled. 
 
62 AGKICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917. 
 
 The situation we are worldng toward in cotton is just this, that New 
 Orleans shall be, the greatest spot-cotton market in the world, and 
 that New York shall be the greatest cotton-futures market in the 
 World, just as Chicago is in grain. We believe that the foreigners 
 who are really praying for the enactment of grain regulation are not 
 altogether consistent when they do not take the same position in the 
 case of cotton, and it is due to the fact that in one case v,e have the 
 upper hand and in he other case, because of the economic weakness 
 during the past of one section of our country — and it is improving 
 wonderfully — they have held the upper hand, mainly with reference 
 to cotton. 
 
 The Chairmax. The foreigners held the upper hand? 
 Mr. Brand. The foreigners held the upper hand. What we are 
 Working toward is this: That grower who produces these crops shall 
 put them out to the markets of the world as the markets need them, 
 and then we will ha^e a true market price ; we will not be sacrificing 
 ourselves by jDermitting futures in the fall to dominate the price of 
 the whole year, and especially to dominate the price while the farmer 
 is parting with his ])roduct. I want to just point out one additional 
 item about that whole business : We sell hedges in Liverpool against 
 our spots for export. Liverpool does not absorb those hedges. Those 
 hedges are straddled back on New York, and the New York market 
 is depressed and that fixes the price for our commodity in the South, 
 and the effect is just the opposite to what some of the men who have 
 been before you understand it to be, but they are not misrepresenting. 
 They have not studied this most technical subject the wa}* other men 
 have ; that is all there is about it. 
 
 The Chairjian. In connection with hedging, there is always a 
 purchase of futures to correspond with the sale of futures originally ? 
 
 Mr Brand. Or vice versa. 
 
 The Chairman. Depending, of course, upon the original purchase 
 and sale price? 
 
 Mr. Brand. Yes. I think I can clear that up, Mr. Chairman, in 
 your mind certainly, that for every hedge sale there comes a hedge 
 purchase, in order to cancel the contract. 
 
 The Chairman. They equalize themselves? 
 
 Mr. Brand. They offset each other, and I may say in that respect 
 that the selling down of our markets by the foreign markets occurs 
 in the fall when we are selling our staple, cheapening our price. The 
 buying in occurs in the later positions, and will tend to give us, in- 
 stead of a very great drop in prices in the fall, a uniform curve 
 throughout the year. That is the economic purpose of the whole 
 business. 
 
 The Chairman. Did we not pass a law a year or two ago to fix 
 standards for apples? 
 
 Mr. Brand. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And did we not pass a law to fix a standard for 
 barrels ? 
 
 Mr. Brand. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And you are encouraging standardization? 
 
 Mr. Brand. In every way we are encouragmg standardization, and 
 everybody is asking us from every section of the United States to 
 help them with the matter. 
 
 The Chairman. Whv? 
 
AGEICULTUEE APPKOPEIATION BILL, 1917. 63 
 
 Mr. Brand. Because it gives such a strong advantage to them in 
 selhng their products. 
 
 For instaiice, the Colorado apple people around Grand Junction 
 have a standard pack, and they get more for the same grade and size 
 ot apple than other people who do not pack in standard boxes. The 
 same is true of northwestern apples. 
 
 The Chaieman. Is it your idea that every product that lends itself 
 to grading should be graded ? 
 
 Mr. Brand. They should be graded, and that is why wheat, and 
 more particularly, cotton, is marketed at such a low cost. 
 
 The Chairjian. Is Congressman Rubev here? 
 
 Mr. EtTBEr. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. If jou desire to make a statement we will be 
 pleased to hear you now. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS L, RUBEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI. 
 
 Mr. RuBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not care to take up your time at 
 any great length. I am very much in favor of this measure. 
 
 The Chairman. You introduced the bill in the House? 
 
 Mr. RuBEY. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. What district in Missouri do you represent, Mr. 
 Rubey? 
 
 Mr. Rubey. I represent the sixteenth congressional district of 
 Missouri. 
 
 In that connection I want to say that this bill is very similar to the 
 Moss bill, which was introduced in the House and which passed the 
 House last year. 
 
 The Chairman. I might say in that connection that I introduced 
 it in the Senate and this committee reported it in the last Congress. 
 
 Mr. Rubey. The Moss bill and your bill in the last Congress were 
 identical. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Rubey. In that connection I want to say that when the Moss 
 bill passed the House there were just 17 votes cast against the bill. 
 
 The Chairman. You mean the Sixty -third Congress? 
 
 Mr. Rubey. In the Sixty-third Congress. The bill was offered as 
 an amendment in the Senate to the McCumber bill, and it received the 
 votes of 26 Senators as against 34 when it was offered as a substitute 
 to the McCumber bill. 
 
 The Chairman. I might say there that some who favored the prin- 
 ciple of Federal inspection or supervision voted against the bill be- 
 cause they thought it did not go far enough. 
 
 Mr. Rubey. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that anyone who is in 
 favor of Government inspection ought to be in favor of this propo- 
 sition, provided, of course, he can not get Government inspection. 
 And in that connection I desire to say that to my mind this bill will 
 accomplish what was sought to be accomplished by the McCumber 
 bill in this, that if we have Government inspection, if the Secretary 
 of Agriculture were authorized to appoint every inspector of gram 
 in the United States, it would then be absolutely necessary, m order 
 to have uniformity in the grading of grain and in the enforcement of 
 that law, to appoint supervisors of grain at every big mariiet in the 
 
64 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1911. 
 
 country to see that the law was enforced and that the Government 
 grades were applied uniformly in every 'market of the country. 
 
 This bill provides for Government supervision. It authorizes the 
 Secretary of Agriculture to appoint, or, rather, to license inspectors. 
 At every one of the 30 or 40 grain markets of the country he will 
 place a supervisor. He will have there a representative, and that rep- 
 resentative will see that this law is enforced and that the standards 
 are applied uniformly throughout the country. 
 
 There are just two things in this bill. First, it provides for uni- 
 form standards. Now, we have a law on the statute books to-day — ^it 
 has been there for something like four years, I think — which author- 
 izes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish grain gradea Under 
 that law he has already established corn grades, and as soon as he 
 can get to it he will establish standards for wheat and oats and other 
 grains. When he established the corn standards in 1914 — and those 
 standards are absolutely permissive — no grain department in any 
 State or on any exchange or anywhere is compelled to use those 
 grades, and yet those grades have been adopted by every State de- 
 partment; they have been adopted in every market in the country, 
 with the exception of three or four, and those are the markets on the 
 Atlantic seaboard. 
 
 The Chairman. The export markets? 
 
 Mr. EuBET. The export markets; yes; those are the only markets 
 that have refused to adopt the corn grades. And the reason they 
 have refused to adopt the corn grades, and the reason that they are 
 opposed to this measure which is before you to-day is because it has 
 been their policy in the years gone by — and they are doing it now — 
 to buy low-grade grain and ship it out as a higher grade. Before 
 our committee in 1914, Mr. Eddy, a representative of one of the big 
 markets, an exporter, testified that they bought No. 3 corn, and even 
 No. 4 corn, and shipped it to Europe as No. 2 corn. They have been 
 doing that and they want to continue to do it. 
 
 The Chair AiAN. Let me ask you a question there. Is it your un- 
 derstanding that that damages the reputation of American grain? 
 
 Mr. EuBEY. Absolutely. 
 
 The Chairman. Has that reputation depressed the price of Ameri- 
 can grain ? 
 
 Mr. RuBEY. There is no question about it, because when No. 2 
 corn is bought on the European market and it is of an inferior 
 quality they are not going to pay as much for it as they would pay 
 ■ if it were of a quality typical of real No. 2 corn. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you think the foreign price is reflected in the 
 domestic price ? 
 
 Mr. RuBEY. There is no question in the world about it, and the 
 farmers of oUr country in that way have lost thousands upon thous- 
 ands — probably millions — of dollars. There is no question about it 
 at all. 
 
 The Chairman. What do you tliink is the attitude of the farmers 
 on this proposition ? 
 
 Mr. IluBBY. Well, the attitude of the farmer is this: Every 
 farmer organization has indorsed Federal supervision; not this bill, 
 you understand, but they have been in favor of Federal supervision. 
 Whenever a farmer finds that he is not getting a square deal what 
 does he do ? He calls on the (rovernment to help him ; and every 
 
AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1911. 65 
 
 farmer in this land wants the Government to step in now and see 
 that he gets a square deal in the grading of his grain, and hence the 
 farmers have been urgently in favor of national inspection. They 
 want the Government of the United States to establish standards 
 and do the grading throughout the country. 
 
 This bill provides for grain supervision. Efforts have been made 
 to pass bills for Federal inspection. In the last Congress the Mc- 
 Cumber bill was before the Senate and was debated for weeks by 
 that body. It was defeated by a very decisive vote. I do not be- 
 lieve it is possible to pass a Federal grading bill, a bill providing for 
 Government grading of grain. 
 
 The Chairman. Inspection, you mean ? 
 
 Mr. EuBEY. Government inspection; yes. But you can pass this 
 measure, which will bring the same identical relief that Federal 
 inspection would bring, absolutely. There is no question about it. 
 
 Senator Smith of Georgia. Now, Senator Gronna a few moments 
 ago stated that he considered this bill hostile to the interests of the 
 farmers and in the interest of the speculators and dealers. What 
 element is there in the bill that you think would receive such an 
 interpretation ? 
 
 Mr. EuBBT. I was present; I heard the Senator's remarks, and 
 there is not a line in this bill from beginning to end that would give 
 it that interpretation. I am frank to say that if that interpretation 
 could be placed upon it I would be just as much opposed to it as 
 Senator Gronna, but there is nothing of that kind in the bill. 
 
 Senator Beady. What do you find the opposition to the bill comes 
 from? 
 
 Mr. EuBEY. The opposition to the bill comes from two sources. It 
 comes from the exporters in the first place ; it comes from the grain- 
 grading departments in the second place. 
 
 Senator Smith of Georgia. Of the States? 
 
 Mr. EuBEY. Of the v-arious States. 
 
 The Chairman. And there is some opposition from those who 
 want to go further and provide for Federal inspection and super- 
 vision ? 
 
 Mr. EuBEY. Yes ; this bill has opposition from those who want to 
 go further than the bill does. 
 
 Senator Noeeis. Maybe you have gone over this matter before I 
 came in, and if you have I will not ask you to repeat it, but what 
 is the opposition of the exporters in the first place? What is their 
 reason for opposing it? 
 
 Mr. KuBEY. Ther reason for opposing it, as I stated a moment ago, 
 is that they can buy grain of low grade and ship it out as high grade. 
 
 Senator Noeeis. And they could not do it under this bill ? 
 
 Mr. EuBEY. No, sir. 
 
 Senator Smith of Georgia. They would have to buy it at the 
 grade it really stood at. 
 
 Mr. EtTBEY. Yes. No. 2 corn they would have to buy as No. 2 
 corn and ship it out as No. 2 corn. 
 
 Senator Noeeis. What is the opposition of the various State in- 
 spectors? Why are they opposed to it? 
 
 Mr. EuBEY. They are opposed to it because they do not want their 
 departments put out of business, they were opposed to the McCumber 
 bill because it would have put them out of business. This bill does 
 46655— c— 16 5 
 
66 AGBICULTUEE APPEOPRIATIOK BILL, 1911. 
 
 not, but they are afraid that this bill might eventually lead to subse- 
 quent legislation that might interfere with their respective depart- 
 ments. 
 
 Senator Noeris. I was one of the 12 fellows who were in favor of 
 the McCumber bill. I think there is need of inspection. I thought 
 So then, but of course we did not stand any show. Now, on the other 
 hand, it is plain — undoubtedly in the best of faith — that men like 
 Senator Gronna, who is really an expert, I think, on this question, are 
 of the opinion that this bill would not be of any benefit to the man 
 who produces the grain. 
 
 Mr. RuBET. Mr. Chairman, I think it would bring to the farmer 
 who produces the grain the same identical relief that would be 
 brought by the passage of the Federal-inspection act itself. 
 
 The Chaieman. To meet the concrete objection made by Senator 
 Gronna — Senator Gronna thinks that a farmer living in North Da- 
 kota could not sell on grade a carload of grain to be shipped to Minne- 
 apolis, for instance, under that act. 
 
 Mr. Etjbey. He could sell it on grade when he got to market with 
 it under this act, just exactly as he could sell it under a Federa:l-in- 
 spection act when he got to market. 
 
 The Chaieman. The second proviso in section 4, as I understand 
 it, is drafted and designed to meet that very situation, to let the man 
 in North Dakota, the farmer, ship to Minneapolis. Isn't that your 
 understanding of it? • 
 
 Mr. RuBET. How was that? 
 The Chairman. The second proviso in section 4. 
 Mr. Etjbey. The second proviso provides that a man may sell his 
 grain, if he does not want to sell by grade and it is not possible for 
 him to sell it by grade, he may sell it by sample. 
 The Chairman. No ; that is the first proviso. 
 Mr. RuBEr. Well, I will take those up in this way. We have pro- 
 vided every possible means of giving the farmer and the shipper an 
 opportunity to sell his grain by grade under this act. 
 
 The second proviso provides that any grain sold or offered for 
 sale by one of the grades fixed therefor in the official grain standards 
 may be shipped to or through any place at which an inspector 
 licensed under this act is located, subject to the rules and regulations 
 of the Secretary of Agriculture, to be inspected at the place to which 
 shipped. 
 
 The Chaieman. That is the point. Could the farmer in North 
 Dakota ship a carload of grain from North Dakota to Minneapolis 
 and have it inspected at Minneapolis ? 
 
 Mr. RuBEY. Certainly. There is no question in the world about 
 that. 
 The Chaieman. That is what the proviso is intended to do ? 
 Mr. EuBEY. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, I want to bring this point out. Now, then, 
 if when his carload of grain reached Minneapolis and was inspected, 
 if the State inspector graded it lower than the farmer thought it 
 ought to be, he would have a right, under this bill, to appeal to the 
 Federal supervisor. 
 Mr. RuBEY. Certainly. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, if it graded higher than the farmer thought 
 it ought to, he probably would not desire to appeal. 
 
AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1911. 67 
 
 Mr. RuBEY. The man purchasing the grain could appeal if he 
 wanted to. & e n 
 
 iu'^l® Chairman. If it was an instance where it graded higher than 
 the tarmer sold it, then the man purchasing it could appeal. 
 
 Mr. RuBEY. Either party could appeal. 
 _ The Chairman. And that could not deprive the farmer of any 
 right he contemplated in his sale. 
 
 Mr. Rtjbey. Not only that, but with a fixed standard the time 
 would soon come when the farmers themselves would be able at their 
 local elevator to apply those standards and know what grade of 
 wheat they were selling. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, one of the primary evils to be remedied is 
 to protect the farmers of North Dakota, South Dakota, western Ne- 
 braska, western Oklahoma, and western Kansas from shipping wheat 
 to some market and being compelled to take the grading they receive 
 "there by the State or by the board of trade inspectors. 
 
 Mr. Rubey. And having no recourse whatever — no appeal. 
 
 Senator Noeris. Is there any danger of it working out this way : 
 Instead of the farmer from North Dakota shipping his grain to Min- 
 neapolis, it would be the local elevator man who would buy of the 
 farmer. The farmer's interest is lost; he doesn't care anything 
 "more about it; he has sold out; but who graded the grain when he 
 did sell? 
 
 Mr. Eubey. But under the provisions of this bill, with uniform 
 standards and with those standards promulgated by the Secretary 
 of Agriculture, and with those from the department going out on the 
 lecture platform and elsewhere to give this information, these mat- 
 ters could be brought to the attention of the farmer, and by means 
 of bulletins or otherwise these grades could be furnished to the 
 farmer and he could familiarize himself with the methods of grading, 
 with the grades themselves, so that when he goes into the little local 
 town with a certain quality of wheat and goes to the elevator he 
 would be able right then and there to oversee the grading of his 
 grain and to see whether or not he was getting a square deal. 
 
 Senator Noreis. But suppose he knew he was not getting a square 
 deal, what is he going to do? He hasn't got a carload, and he is 
 going to sell it to the local elevator man. What can he do about it ? 
 
 Senator Shafroth. He would be in no worse condition then than 
 he is now. 
 
 Senator Noreis. But I want to know what good it will do. 
 
 The Chairman. You will find that we put in the record yesterday, 
 Senator, a statement from a speech by a Mr. Danforth, of Illinois, 
 who is president of the Farmers' Cooperative Association of the 
 "United States, representing, I think, 300,000 farmers; and he stated 
 that the corn grades which have been issued and adopted have been 
 of great service to all the farmers' elevators, because they have the 
 grades there and can make comparison themselves and tell what 
 the grades are. I think that meets the very point you urge, at 
 least so far as corn is concerned. ^ .^ .^ ^, ^ 
 
 Senator Norris. That might meet it ii the farmers had an or- 
 ganization at the local point and were doing their own shipping. 
 
 Mr Eubey. We have 4,000 farmers' elevators in this country to- 
 day. 
 
68 AGEICULTUBE APPBOPEIATION BILL, 1917. 
 
 Senator Norris. But what is going to happen to the farmer where 
 he doesn't belong, and there perhaps isn't any local organization to 
 which he could belong, no farmers' elevator? He goes in and sells 
 to the elevator man. The elevator man buys his grain outright. 
 It doesn't make any difference what the grade is, but he perhaps 
 doesn't buy it on the real grade that it would be entitled to receive 
 if it were properly graded, and then he sells it on a higher grade 
 than that at which he bought it from the farmer. He has done well 
 out of it, but the farmer hasn't gotten anything out of it. 
 
 Mr. EtTBET. By the passage of this bill you will give those farmers 
 in that community, when they find that they are not being treated 
 right and are not getting the grades they are entitled to get, the 
 opportunity to organize and to ship by carload lots to the market 
 themselves, and have their own wheat graded in the larger market; 
 and they can't do that now under present conditions. 
 Senator Norris. Yes, I see that. 
 
 Senator Brady. There is a great deal of shipping in carload lots 
 by individual farmers in my State. 
 
 Mr. RuBET. It is being done, not only in grain but in other products 
 throughout the country. The Bureau of Markets in its work is 
 encouraging in all communities the organization of farmers for the 
 purpose of shipping in carload lots, and that thing will be done. 
 And when they do do that, if they ship in carload lots it will give 
 the farmers an opportunity to get the right grade for their grain. 
 
 Senator Brady. And the bill encourages the farmers to go into 
 these organizations. 
 Mr. EuBEY. Certainly. 
 
 The Chairman. Congressman, if this bill passes and the farmer 
 ships to one of these concentrated markets, if he is not satisfied with 
 the grade he has the right to appeal? 
 Mr. RuBEY. Certainly. 
 
 The Chairman. If he does not want to appeal, he is in no worse 
 condition than he is now. 
 Mr. RuBEr. Not at all. 
 
 The Chairman. And if he wants to appeal, he is in a better situ- 
 ation. 
 
 Mr. RuBEY. Certainly. It gives him an opportunity to appeal and 
 to have the Secretary of Agriculture pass upon it ; some one expressed 
 the idea — I don't know whether it was a member of this committee 
 or not, but some Senator expressed the idea that all of these appeals 
 would have to be taken to the Secretary of Agriculture here in 
 Washington. But that, you understand, is not correct. The modus- 
 operandi of putting this bill into operation would not be that. The 
 Secretary of Agriculture would have supervisors and inspectors at 
 every one of the important markets of the country. 
 
 The Chairman. Now. in addition to providing the farmer an ap- 
 peal, another object would be the establishing of one uniform stand- 
 ard of grades in place of the 35 or 40 that now exist. 
 Mr. RtTBEY. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And it would also establish gi-ades in foreign mar- 
 kets, so that the foreigner can buy and loiow what he buys. 
 
 Mr. RuBEY. If you will read the resolutions adopted by the various 
 farmers' organizations of the country, you will find that they are 
 all seeking standardization of agricultural Droducts- 
 
AGBIOULTURE APPEOPBIATION BILL, 1917. 69 
 
 The Chairman. We are receiving a great many of those. 
 
 Senator Smith of Georgia. Isn't it true that the buyers as a rule 
 handle a good deal more of the commodity than the individual farmer 
 does? They are more familiar with the real question of quality and 
 grade than the farmer, and where anybody gets the advantage the 
 buyer gets it over the farmer, as it now stands, from the farmer's 
 lack of laiowledge of grade, and as we establish grades and standard- 
 ize grades the farmer more and more gets the benefit of the true 
 value of what he has produced. 
 
 Mr. RuBEY. That is true, absolutely. 
 
 The Chairman. Isn't this true, that the honest dealer and the 
 honest miller wants honest grades and uniform grades, and wants 
 them nationalized so they will know what they are getting? 
 
 Mr. EuBEY. They not only want it but they have petitioned Con- 
 gress for it, and have sent in letters asking for it. I want to leave 
 with the members of this committee some copies of a speech that I 
 placed in the record. I am leaving it not for the value of the speech 
 but I want to call your attention in that speech to the indorsements 
 that Jiave come to me and to the Department of Agriculture in favor 
 of this bill. 
 
 The Chairman. Could you provide us with enough for each mem- 
 ber of the coramittee? 
 
 Mr. EuBET. Yes, sir; I have enough to go round. I simply leave 
 that with you so that you may see the organizations that have in- 
 dorsed this measure. It has been indorsed by the farmers' elevators, 
 by the grain dealers, by the millers, and by everybody who has had 
 to do with the handling of grain from the time it gets to the market 
 place in the little town until it is finally disposed of or goes to for- 
 eign markets. 
 
 Senator Ransdell. I suppose the same advantages that you claim 
 for wheat under this bill would be applicable to oats ? 
 
 Mr. Rttbet. Certainly, it would apply to all grains. 
 
 Senator Eansdell. I judged so. 
 
 Mr. Eubet. Now, Mr. Chairman, there is another thing I want 
 to call the committee's attention to, and that is this : The opposition 
 that comes here among Senators to this measure is from two ex- 
 tremes. I was somewhat surprised by the opposition of the Senator 
 from my State to this measure, because he supported the Gore 
 amendment in the Senate two years ago, providing for supervision. 
 But the opposition comes from those who do not want any legisla- 
 tion upon this subject at all. That is one class. The other class is 
 that like the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Gronna, and possibly 
 the Senator from Nebraska. 
 
 Senator Norris. No, no ; I don't want you to put me in that class. 
 I am asking my questions purely for the purpose of getting infor- 
 mation and throwing light on the subject. 
 
 Mr. EuBET. Well, I will just call it those Senators, then, who are 
 in favor of Government inspection of grain. 
 
 Senator Norris. I am in favor of that. 
 
 Mr. Rtjbet. Yes ; I know ; but some of those Senators who are in 
 favor of Government inspection of grain, who may feel that this 
 bill does not go far enough, might possibly oppose this measure ; and 
 on the other hand, those who do not want anything oppose it. 
 
70 AGEIOULTUEE APPROPRIATION BILL, 191'7. 
 
 Now, it does seems to me that every argument that can be pre- 
 sented before this committee or before the Senate in favor of Gov- 
 ernment inspection can be urged in favor of this measure ; and the 
 only objection that anyone could have is that this bill possibly might 
 not go far enough or as far as they would like for it to go and place 
 an inspector, a Government inspector, at every market in the various 
 parts of the country. Now, of course, if we had Federal inspection 
 there would be at every elevator, or rather at every market in the 
 country, a Federal inspector. That would be, of course, an ad- 
 vantage to the farmers. We all admit that, but just think of the 
 enormous expense and the enormous number of men that it would 
 take to grade the grain of the country if you were to place an in- 
 spector at every place from which there were a few carloads of 
 grain shipped. 
 
 Senator Smith of South Carolina. I was not in here when you 
 begun your testimony. I have been trying to get clearly in my mind 
 the difference between Federal inspection and Federal supervision. 
 Now, see if I understand it right. Federal inspection means officers 
 appointed, controlled, and paid by the Government? 
 
 Mr. RuBEY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Smith of South Carolina. Federal supervision means 
 that those who are already expert in grading are licensed by the 
 Government and are more or less under the control of the Government 
 in case complaint arises, and they will have to conform to your 
 standard of grades. 
 
 Mr. EuBEY. And in addition to that, at each one of the important 
 markets of the country the Government will place an inspector, what 
 might be called a supervisor, who will supervise the grading in that 
 market, and to whom all appeals could be made. As I said in the 
 first part of my remarks, that would have to be done if you had 
 Federal inspection. You could not have Federal inspection and have 
 it uniform throughout the country without having in addition to 
 the inspectors an expert man at every grain market in the country, 
 to see that the grades were applied uniformly. Xow, this leaves the 
 grading of grain to the State departments. The inspectoi's are ap- 
 pointed by the boards of trade and by the chambers of commerce, but 
 it says to them, " You must use these grades which the Government 
 has provided, and the Government is going to supervise your grad- 
 ing and is going to see that you apply those grades uniformly and 
 that you apply them correctly, and that the grain gets the gi'ade to 
 which it is entitled." 
 
 Senator Wadsavorth. Congi-essman, can you give me your idea 
 on one of the details of this subject? I don't want to conjure up 
 difficulties unnecessarily, but there are several States in the Union 
 that have no grade inspection. 
 
 Mr. RuBEY. There are only about eight or nine that have grade 
 inspection. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. Two of them are important. Texas is impor- 
 tant and New York is important. New York, of course, is not a gi'eat 
 wheat State, but all my neighbors raise wheat ; I Icnow that. Now, 
 in the event of this law being placed on the statute books, do you 
 thinlc tliat citizens of New York and of Texas, or States in that cate- 
 gory, would voluntarily apply for a license? 
 
AGBICULTUKE APPKOPEIATION BILL, 1917. 71 
 
 Mr. EuBEY. Well, in New York, for instance, under your present 
 system, as you have it now, you have inspection, haven't you? 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. Not that I know of. 
 
 Mr. EuBEY. You are bound to have, in the big markets of the 
 country. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. They have the board of trade in New York 
 City, but I mean in the elevators. 
 
 Mr. EuBEY. Well, no; they would only be — under this law only the 
 grain which goes into interstate commerce is inspected. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. Well, there would not 
 
 _ Mr. EuBEY (interposing). There would not be Government inspec- 
 tion out in the State at every little town, or even a good-sized town, 
 unless that were a grain center from which shipments were made in 
 interstate and foreign commerce. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. Yes; but a lot of grain goes into interstate 
 and foreign commerce. Now, when the farmer sells it to the local 
 elevator, for instance, in western New York, be does not know 
 whether it is going into interstate commerce or not, so that it may 
 be inspected ; he can not take the chance. 
 
 Mr. Etjbey. No ; under the present system he has no way of know- 
 ing what grade he is selling to that elevator. But, as I explained 
 a moment ago, in the discussion that came up, if he goes to a local 
 elevator and if he and the farmers in that community become satis- 
 fied that they are not getting the right grade for their grain, they 
 will sell their grain in corload. lots ; then their grain will be in- 
 spected and graded at the terminal market. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. I understand that part of it all right. 
 
 Mr. Etjbey. But where they sell in small quantities to a local 
 elevator in a small town, there is no way of having that grain in- 
 spected, unless you have Federal inspection. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. Perhaps I -did not make my point clear. I 
 will cite another part of the country as an instance. Take Texas: 
 Texas has no grain inspection, as I understand. And yet, over the 
 Santa Fe Eailroad, in the panhandle of Texas, there were moved 
 out of Texas, served simply by the Santa Fe road alone in the 
 panhandle, 9,000 cars of wheat. That all went into interstate 
 commerce. Now, do you anticipate that following the enactment 
 of this law, that great traffic in wheat will be taken care of by 
 persons in that vicinity who will voluntarily apply for a license 
 to the Secretary of Agriculture and become thereby grain grading 
 inspectors? 
 
 Mr. Eubey. Well, they can not apply for a license in an interior 
 point in the State, unless that is a point of sufficient magnitude to 
 warrant issuing a license there ; but at a place even in the interior of 
 the State, where a great many cargoes of wheat go in and out, into 
 interstate commerce, the Government would put a supervisor there; 
 there is no question about that. But now, that grain which you 
 spoke of is inspected somewhere ; it is inspected,, possibly, at Galves- 
 ton; if it goes north, it is inspected, possibly, at Kansas City, or in 
 Chicago, or at some other pomt. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. I dare say it is inspected at the great tremi- 
 nal when it finally reaches that terminal. 
 
 Mr. Etjbey. Yes. 
 
72 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1911. 
 
 Senator Wadswortit. But by that time the identity of the grain 
 is lost. 
 
 Mr. RuBEY. That may be true. It depends upon circumstances. 
 If a man ships a whole carload of grain, it will not lose its indentity, 
 because that retains its identity until it goes to the market place 
 and is unloaded and mixed with other gram. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. EuBEY. I believe that the situation to which you refer, which 
 is an important one, will be taken care of under this bill. I believe 
 that the men who ship in great quantities will avail themselves of 
 the apportunity offered by the provisions of this bill, and have 
 their grain inspected. For instance, if it is shipped from a place 
 where there is no inspection, under this bill, to a place where there is 
 inspection, it can be graded at the latter place. If it is shipped 
 from a place where there is no inspector to a place in another State 
 where there is no inspector, it can be sold by grade; and if the man 
 who receives it, or the man who sells it, is not satisfied with the 
 grade, he can appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture. We have 
 taken care of every situation that it is possible to take care of in 
 the provisions of this bill. 
 
 I am very much obliged to you gentlemen for your attention. 
 
 The Chairman. Gentlemen, the Assistant Secretary of Agricul- 
 ture is here. We have under consideration the grain-grading i-idei 
 of the Agriculture appropriation bill, and we would be very glad, 
 Mr. Secretary, if you would make any observations which you think 
 proper concerning it. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. CARL VROOMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
 
 OF AGRICULTURE. 
 
 Mr. Vkooman. Mr. Chairman, I understand that every Secretary 
 of Agriculture so far, that has gone on record at all. has gone on 
 record in favor of some kind of Federal oversight, either the Federal 
 supervision of a State inspection, or complete Federal inspection of 
 grain. Moreover, my understanding is that Congress has appropri- 
 ated a great deal of money to our department for the specific pur- 
 pose of naving us investigate this question under discussion here Hiis 
 morning, along with other similar questions, and has also formally 
 asked us for our assistance in drafting this legislation : so that I wish 
 it understood that we are not rushing in here attempting 
 
 Senator SnArKOTH (interposing). To dictate. 
 
 Mr. Vrooman. To dictate or take away from you your prerogatives 
 in this matter. We are merely doing what you have asked us to do. 
 
 Senator Siiafeoth. You were simply invited to come and give 
 your views. 
 
 Senator Brady. That was my understanding. That was the rea- 
 son I asked the question yesterday of the chairman. 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Now, I am not an expert on this subject. We have 
 experts in the department, and they are here prepared to give you 
 any detailed information you desire; and my remarks will be as 
 much from the point of view of the farmer as from the point of view 
 of the Department of Agriculture. I raise wheat, and have done so 
 for a number of years; I raise corn and other grains: and I am 
 more or less familiar with the attitude of the farmers of the country 
 
AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1911. 73 
 
 on this question. I think that a good many farmers' organizntions 
 would prefer to have Federal inspection to Federal supervision of 
 State inspection, but I think that, failing to get that, most of them— 
 nearly all of them in fact — are in favor of the Federal supervision 
 of State inspection. 
 
 I spoke at the Chicago conference on marketing and farm credits 
 several months ago, and after my address on the subject I talked 
 with a number of the farmers present there. They said. " Yes, we 
 favor Federal inspection, but if we can not get that we favor P'ed- 
 eral supervision of State inspection. "We believe that is a Ijig step 
 in the right direction." 
 
 The Chairman. That meeting was held in the latter part of 
 November last, was it not ? 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Yes. 
 
 Senator Johnson. May I interrupt you, Mr. Secretary? 
 
 Mr. Vrooman. Yes; certainly. 
 
 Senator Johnson. Do you find many of the farmers who want to 
 go further than this bill goes? 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Yes; a great many farmers want to go further 
 than this bill goes ; they want complete Federal inspection. I should 
 thinlc, probably, a majority of the farmers have that feeling — a 
 majority, at least, of those that are organized. 
 
 Senator Thompson. That is, they want compulsory Federal grad- 
 ing, and Federal inspection, as I understand it? 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Yes; but as that seems to be something that we 
 can not possibly get this year, I think a large majority of the farmers 
 are in favor; as I say, of the measure that we now are examining. 
 
 I look upon this whole problem from the point of view that we 
 have to take when looking at all these interrelated problems. This 
 is only part of a great agricultural program that we are attempting 
 to work out in this country. Congress did a great piece of con- 
 structive work when it created the Office of Market and Rural 
 Organization in our department. I remember a number of years 
 ago, when I was a regent of an agricultural college, I used to go 
 around visiting among the agricultural colleges I was very much 
 upset by the fact that they were not doing any work along eco- 
 nomic lines, and that the department was not doing any work along 
 economic lines. The department and the colleges were working 
 along the lines of increasing crop production, but until recently they 
 did almost nothing in the matter of helping the farmer to take his 
 large crops and translate them into coin — to help him to dispose of 
 his crops to advantage. And the measure now under consideration 
 is only one small part of a great program that we are now working 
 out along the line of agricultural economics. I think that from the 
 standpoint of the farmer it is fully as important as the work of in- 
 creasing the fertility of the soil or increasing the yields. 
 
 Now, you all know as well as I do that it is irnpossible to perfect 
 any such program in one session of Congress; it is something we 
 shall have to work out gradually. The Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission's power developed a gradual growth. The first bill that 
 created the Interstate Commerce Commission gave them almost no 
 powers at all, but gradually tbeir powers were increased until we 
 have the present commission, which is the best thing of the sort in 
 
74 AGEICULTUKE APPROPEIATION BILL, 1911. 
 
 the world. And the same thing is true in the history of all lands of 
 legislation. 
 
 Therefore I think that the farmers of the country will feel — 
 and I have some communications recently from some of them — ^that 
 if this measure goes through it is a very important step forward. 
 It probably does not create an ideal system; but nobobdy that has 
 any gumption expects an ideal system to be rrciited right off the 
 bat; that does not happen in this world; it never has happened, so 
 far as I know. But this amendment, if enacted into law, will be the 
 greatest single step in the direction of scientific grain standardiza- 
 tion and inspection that has ever been taken. 
 
 I had a telegram yesterday from Mr. Herman Danforth, repre- 
 senting the farmers' elevators and cooperative societies of the country. 
 He said, " We are the ones who are more vitally interested in this 
 than anybody else." Now, I know Mr. Danforth very well; he has 
 been all over the country organizing these farmers' organizations; 
 and I do not know anybody in the country who is in closer touch 
 with the condition of mind of the farmers of the countrv; that is, 
 the organized farmers of the country than is Mr. Danforth. He 
 urged me to make clear that the farmers of the country are back of 
 this proposal for Federal supervision of State inspection. 
 
 Senator Brady. What per cent of the farmers of the country do 
 you think are in favor of creating a standard of grades for grain ? 
 
 Mr. Vrooman. I think all farmers are in favor of that who know 
 anything about it. 
 
 Senator Thojipson. The Federal grading, do you mean? 
 
 ]\Ir. Veooman. Do you mean the establishment of official grades 
 or do you mean the Federal inspection of grades i 
 
 Senator Beady. No; under this bill. 
 
 Senator Shafeoth. Fixing it in the law. 
 
 Senator Beady. For creatmg a standard of grades. I feel that if 
 you could not get anything but a standard it would be a great benefit. 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Yes; that would be a great benefit. 
 
 Senator Beady. But I am very anxious to know just how the 
 farmers of the country feel about establishing a standard for grain. 
 
 Mr. Veoojian. Well, all who haA'e given any consideration to it 
 are in favor of it. I think that is a fact generally understood. The 
 farmers recognize that any uncertainty in the grading of gi-ains is 
 to their disadvantage. Any uncertainty about grades is taken ad- 
 vantage of by the better organized and more skillful city or town 
 business man and the farmer loses. The farmer Imows that; he 
 knows that his interest is always conserved by having an established 
 grade — something that there can not be any misunderstanding about. 
 
 Senator Johnsox. Mr. Vrooman, I can very readily see why the 
 millers and the big shippers, big elevator people, etc., would want 
 this bill, not for any reason of any advantage that it would give them, 
 but for the reason that they would be relieved of the great troubles 
 which they all have, that come from the little shippers, in regard to 
 grading. In other words, tliey would step out from under that. 
 That would not be any advantage to them over the farmer, but would 
 save them a great deal of trouble. 
 
 Now, if I can get my mind clear — speaking for one — as to the 
 benefit that this is going to be for the real producer, not only of 
 
AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917. 75 
 
 wheat, but of corn and barley and oats and all of the things that are 
 successfully raised in South Dakota, then I want to favor this bill. 
 But I am not clear on it yet, and I hope that action may be delayed 
 long enough until I can get some information which I am now seek- 
 ing from our people. 
 
 I am going to make this as a suggestion: The bill in its present 
 form is like all other bills, as has been suggested to me. It is made 
 up of all kinds of parts, and they are put together in a way so that it 
 is not the easiest bill in the world to understand. In other words, 
 the parts that belong together are strung through in different places, 
 and if the bill was redrafted and condensed in the way that it prop- 
 erly should be drawn up, I believe it would be better. I know it 
 would be more satisfactory to me and more easy to digest. 
 
 Senator Shafeoth. Senator Johnson, this bill has been digested 
 time after time and there has been hearing after hearing upon it 
 and days after days of consideration of it. 
 
 Senator Johnson. That is the trouble with it. 
 
 Senator Shapeoth (continuing). And I do not believe you can get 
 any more concrete a bill than this; you will find, if you take each 
 part and analyze it, that there is some relation that it bears to the 
 other parts. 
 
 Senator Johnson. It is possible that that is true; it did not im- 
 press me that way. I believe the department could take that bill 
 and put it together in a great deal better form. 
 
 Senator Noeeis. Senator Johnson, as far as the particular point 
 under discussion is concerned, applying to the grading and super- 
 vision of the grading of grain, that is all in one place in the bill. 
 
 Senator Johnson. Yes. 
 
 Senator Noeeis. Of course, there are appropriations in the bill for 
 other things connected with agriculture, but not necessarily connected 
 with the grading and supervision of the grading of grain. 
 
 Seator Johnson. Yes ; but other things in connection with that are 
 not in that form, it seems to me. However, I only make that 
 suggestion. 
 
 The Chaieman. It is as to section 4 that there has been the most 
 criticism. 
 
 Senator Shafeoth. I have no doubt, Senator Johnson, that if you 
 make a suggestion on the floor of the Senate for an improvement in 
 the bill that is palpable and plain, it will be accepted by the chair- 
 man in charge of the bill. I have found that all of those chairman 
 are pretty liberal in accepting suggestions, unless they attack the bill 
 itself. 
 
 The Chaieman. We will try to work- that out. Senator Johnson; 
 we will try to put it in shape. At present I think it would be well 
 to go on and hear Assistant Secretary Vrooman, and later we can 
 consider that and work it out. 
 
 Senator Johnson. Yes. I particularly want to hear Mr. Vroo- 
 man's reasons as to the grain raisers' benefits from the bill — I mean 
 in the country, the fellow who raises his own grain, hauls it to mar- 
 ket, loans his own car, and ships it. 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Well, if he loads an entire car, he gets a decided 
 advantage from this bill. If he deals with a farmers' elevator he 
 gets a decided advantage from this bill. If he cooperates with half 
 
76 AGBICULTUEE APPEOPBIATIOIT BILL, WW. 
 
 a dozen of his neighbors so that they will get an entire car, they will 
 get a decided advantage from the bill ; but, so far as I know, if he 
 belongs to none of those classes he will not get any direct benefit. 
 
 Senator Brady. But it would be no detriment to him. 
 
 Mr. Veooman. No ; it would be no detriment to him. 
 
 Senator Beadt. And if they establish standard grades he would 
 get the benefit of that. 
 
 Mr. Vecoman. Yes; he would get that benefit anyhow, but he 
 would have no benefit from the right of appeal. 
 
 Senator Beady. He would not have the benefit of appeal, but the 
 establishment of a grade would have a beneficial effect on the pro- 
 ducer. 
 
 Senator Shafeoth. Yes; that would be of benefit to him. 
 
 Mr. Veooman. That would benefit him indirectly, but these other 
 classes would all have a direct benefit because they would have a 
 right of appeal to the inspector at the terminal point. 
 
 The Chaieman. Which they could exercise if they wanted to, and 
 if they did not want to exercise it they need not do so. 
 
 Mr. Veooman. That is true. 
 
 Senator Beady. This question as to grades has been before us 
 ever since we have been considering this bill; and that is what the 
 benefit to and the attitude of the actual producer of the grain is. It 
 has been represented here that they are not in favor of this bill or 
 amendment, and that the men who are favoring it are the elevator 
 men and the dealers, and the men of that class. 
 
 Now, from your statement it seems to me that the farmers of this 
 country, if they understood the matter properly, would be in favor of 
 this measure; laut we have no way of knowing what their attitude is, 
 and it has not been presented to us in a forcible way; that is, the 
 farmers have not made any appeal to me, for instance, for this bill. 
 And I am of the opinion personally that it is because they have not 
 been advised as to what this bill is, as to these provisions, and that if 
 they were so advised they would come forward with the statements 
 that you have suggested they would come forward with. Now, I 
 believe it would benefit us in many ways if we could get in touch 
 with that information somehow or in some way. 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Well, they would have brought their position to 
 your attention more forcibly if it had not been for the fact that this 
 thing has been fought out here in Congress for so long that it has 
 become an old story to them; and I do not think thev have felt that 
 there was any particular crisis at this time making it necessary- for 
 them to get into the game. 
 
 The Chaieman. The sentiment has been so uniform and so uni- 
 versal among the farmers — with one exception — that it is likely that 
 they would take it for granted that the bill would pass; do you not 
 think that is the case? 
 
 Mr. Veooman. I think that is true. Undoubtedly, also, the fact 
 that they desire a full Federal inspection, if they can get it, has kept 
 them from saying anything at all. 
 
 Senator Shafroth. Have you received many protests in the de- 
 partment from the farmers? 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Not any. 
 
 Senator Thompson. What class of people are protesting against 
 this bill? 
 
AGEIOULTUBB APPEOPKIATION BILL, 1911. 77 
 
 Mr. Veooman. There are only two classes that I Imow of, those 
 for whom this bill is second choice and whose first choice is Federal 
 inspection ; and the other people who do not want any inspection at 
 all, because it is obviously to their interest to continue to take ad- 
 vantage of the present situation. 
 
 Senator Thompson. Would that be the boards of trade ? 
 
 Senator Shafroth. Mostly the exporters. 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Chiefly the exporters. 
 
 Senator Beady. This bill, or one similar to it, was introduced in 
 the House, as I understand it, by Hon. Thomas L. Eubey, of Mis- 
 souri ? 
 
 The Chaieman. This is the Eubey bill. 
 
 Senator Beadt. Now, the junior Senator from Missouri appeared 
 before us yesterday and presented the matter in a very strong man- 
 ner in opposition to this bill. Now, there is one man in the House 
 and one man in the Senate from the State of Missouri taking dif- 
 ferent attitudes. I am interested to know what causes the difference 
 of opinion in that particular State? 
 
 Mr. VeOoman. I think it is a difference of opinion in the men ; that 
 is all. I think the farmers of that State are as strongly in favor of 
 some sort of Federal activity, either supervision or inspection, as 
 they are in any State in the Union. The only thing that I have 
 found that gives any real ground for opposition to this bill is the 
 same ground that you get in opposition to practically every bill, i. e., 
 that it would be possible to have a bill that would satisfy us even 
 better. And I agree with that ; I think we some time will have a bet- 
 ter bill, but I think the farmer will agree with us that this bill is as 
 good a bill as we can reasonably expect of any one Congress. 
 
 Senator Thompson. Why can not we get Federal inspection now ? 
 
 Senator Shafeoth. It would cost too much; it would cost many 
 millions of dollars. 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Yes; it would cost too much. If we do not get 
 this measure, we will get nothing. Now, the farmers want some- 
 thing. The farmers are a good deal like our wives — I am saying 
 this to those present who have wives. We sometimes propose some- 
 thing to them, and they say, " I do not want that ; I want something 
 like this." But because we can not do exactly as they want we do 
 nothing, they will be pretty apt to say later, " If you couldn't do it 
 our way, why didn't you at least do the best you could ? " That is 
 the way with the farmers ; if we do not do anything, the farmers will 
 probably say, " If you couldn't give us a whole loaf, why didn't you 
 at l^ast give us a half loaf? " 
 
 Senator Noeeis. But in the case of our wives, we do not do that 
 way ; we do what she tells us. [Laughter. J 
 
 Senator Shafeoth. No ; she goes and does it herself. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Now, the farmers, if you will pass this bill, will say, 
 '" Well, we would rather have had the other, but, as we can't get that, 
 we recognize that this is a mighty good thing.'! It is my opinion 
 that nine out of ten will take that position. But if you turn down 
 this bill they will say, " Well, of course, we would rather have had 
 Federal inspection, but if you could not give that you should at least 
 have given us Federal supervision of State inspection. That was not 
 our first choice, but we thought everybody would have sense enough 
 
78 AGKICULTUEE APPROPRIATION BILL, 191*7. 
 
 to know that if we could not get the whole loaf we would like half a 
 loaf." 
 
 Senator Noreis. Do you think this bill will result in the stand- 
 ardization of the grades? 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Noeris. There is not any doubt about that in your judg- 
 ment? 
 
 Mr. Veooman. None at all. 
 
 Senator Thompson. And eventually in complete Federal inspec- 
 tion? 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Unless this should work out better than most people 
 think it will. Possibly this will work out better than it is expected 
 to; this general plan works out very well in our judiciary system; we 
 have local judges, State judges, and Federal judges. 
 
 The Chaieman. Mr. Secretary, under the cotton futures act there 
 have been IjlOO appeals as to grades, and they tell me that there have 
 been no difficulties about the rejections; the rejections have been sat- 
 isfactory. 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chaieman. And that would lead us to hope that this measure 
 as to grain would work out satisfactorily. 
 
 Mr. Vroojian. I think this will work out very well. 
 
 The Chaieman. There are three or four points I would like to 
 ask you about as to the concrete form of this bill for the record. This 
 bill, if passed, would enable a farmer in Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, 
 or Oklahoma shipping to a concentration market, if the grading 
 under the board of trade inspection was not satisfactory, to appeal 
 to the United States supervisor and have the grain regraded I 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. He could exercise that appeal if he desired, and 
 he could forego to exercise that appeal if he so desired ? 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Yes_. sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Tlie second point is that it would substitute 1 
 uniform system of grades for 35? 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Exactly. 
 
 The Chaieman. And it would etsablish a grading for our export 
 grain that would rescue the character of our grain in foreign markets 
 from the bad reputation it now bears? 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Yes; and that is very important. 
 
 The Chaieman. And the improved reputation abroad would im- 
 prove the price of our grain abroad? 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Yes ; and gi^•e us a larger market. 
 
 The Chaieman. And that larger market would react on the grain 
 in the farmers' hands? 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Precisely. 
 
 The Chaieman. And, beyond that, it is part of a general system 
 to improve the marketing of grain? 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chaieman. And is it not a necessary part of our system to 
 improve our marketing of grains before we can have a scientific 
 system ? 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Yes; it is the foundation stone of our marketing 
 system. 
 
 The Chairman. Just like a unit of value? 
 
AGEIOTJLTUEE APPBOPKIATION BILL, 1911. 79 
 
 Mr. Vrooman. Exactly. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. Mr. Secretary, may I ask you for your views 
 on two or three points, for information for myself? Perhaps I am 
 backward in understanding the situation. Could you give us any 
 calculation as to the size of the task which would be confronting the 
 department when it starts in to standardize wheat and oats_. Ave will 
 say, into standard grades? 
 
 Mr. Veooman. Dr. Duvel could give you that information much 
 better than I can. That is the work he is engaged on. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. Well, does the appropriation contemplated 
 -by this act accomplish that? 
 
 Mr. Vrooman. No, sir. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. I think this rider carries $125,000 appro- 
 priation. 
 
 Mr. Vrooman. Well, that would be only for this special work. 
 
 Mr. Duvel. We have been working at that for several years. 
 
 The Chairman. It has been in progress since 1907. I think that 
 was the first authorization, the first appropriation; and this bill 
 carries $80,000 besides that in the regular appropriation. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. Well, that is a sort of standard item. I 
 was wondering if the department was going in seriously to estab- 
 lish at the earliest possible date standard grades on these five differ- 
 ent grains, and whether it was not a very large undertaking. I am 
 not against it because it is a very large undertaking, but I want to 
 get some idea or estimate in the record from the responsible official 
 of the department as to just how large an undertaking this is. 
 
 Mr. Vrooman. Dr. Duvel will give you those details when he 
 takes the stand. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. I asked the question because I have heard 
 from other people that the efforts of the department in fixing stand- 
 ards on corn were most difficult and cost a great deal of money and 
 took a long time. 
 
 Mr. Vrooman. Well, we are trying to do a little better job than 
 has ever been done, and it will cost some money; but we feel that 
 it is of such vital importance that it can not be done too well. It is 
 absolutely basic and fundamental. If your grades are established, 
 and if your standards are inaccurate in any degree, then the value 
 of the whole thing is ruined. So we are not sparing any time or 
 energy or necessary expense to make them as perfect as it is humanly 
 possible to make them. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. Well, I am entirely in sympathy with that 
 effort. 
 
 The Chairman. How has the corn grading worked out? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. Well, it is a little early to get any very large results; 
 but it has all been to our advantage. 
 
 The Chairman. To what extent have they been adopted? 
 
 Mr. Vrooman. How is that, Dr. Duvel? 
 
 Mr. Duvel. All except four markets on the Atlantic seaboard. 
 
 The Chairman. I thought you were familiar with that, Mr. 
 Secretary. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. That was another point I wanted to ask 
 you about; and my question is merely for the purpose of getting 
 information, and it not a hostile one. I noticed in the Congressional 
 Eecord a statement filed by the New York Produce Exchange, which 
 
80 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917, 
 
 I have read with some care ; and the only point that seems to me to 
 be very important in their list of objections is the one in which they 
 state that the grades of grain which go into export have been estab- 
 lished through long years of experience, in, conjunction with the 
 desires and wishes of the consumers in Europe; and it is apparent 
 from their statement that they very much fear the effect of radical 
 changes in those grades with respect to their exports and their ex- 
 port trade. They intimate that, through many years of experience 
 in trading, they have educated, as it were, the consumers on the other 
 side to accept certain grades of grain, and that they have to act in 
 conjunction, I suppose, with the great foreign markets. How seri- 
 ously do you regard that objection, and what do you think will be the 
 effect of such change? 
 
 Mr. Vrooman. Not at all seriously. Our experts take all those 
 matters into account. We have sent men abroad, and we have studied 
 all those problems that they have studied ; and we have studied them 
 from the general point of view, instead of from the point of view 
 of the praticular interest involved in exporting the grain; and we 
 have found that it would be very much to the disadvantage of this 
 country to leave the matter to the exporter to determine. 
 
 And I will give you one little instance: A few months ago we 
 seized a lot of oats in Baltimore that were being exported, and the 
 dealers came up here to see what we were going to do about it. 
 We called a general hearing, and discovered that they were adding 
 not only moisture, but from 7^ to 33^ per cent of barley screenings 
 and trash to the oats. Those oats were going abroad as good oats; 
 and it was going to destroy our foreign markets' confidence in our 
 dealers, and work a tremendous injury, not only to the farmer, but 
 to the dealers here, and to the reputation of the American business 
 men as a whole; and we put a stop to it. In the interest of every- 
 body involved in this industry, even of the exporters themselves, if 
 they are in the business permanently and are looking ahead, our 
 work is going to be to their advantage. 
 
 Senator Wadsavorth. You say you put a stop to that particular 
 transaction ? 
 
 Mr. Vrooman. Yes; we have put a stop to any adulteration of 
 oats; we have got that thing in very good shape. 
 
 Senator Wadsworth. In foreign commerce, do you mean ? 
 
 Mr. Vrooman. Foreign or domestic; anything in interstate or 
 foreign commerce. 
 
 Senator Brady. Under the pure-food law, that is? 
 
 Mr. Vrooman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Brady. The point that Senator Wadsworth raises is im- 
 portant; and do you not feel that your department can cooperate 
 with the exporters in fixing grades that are equitable and fair and 
 satisfactory to the exporters? 
 
 Mr. Vrooman. Well, that is the point I wanted to make. We 
 do cooperate with them, and we do take into account all the data 
 that they have ; and we send our experts abroad ; and we send them to 
 the exporters and dealers to get everything that those people can tell 
 us about the trade. We are Hot ignoring any factor ; we are not 
 ignoring any interest. We are trying to learn from everybody every- 
 thing that they can tell us on this subject. 
 
AGEICULTTJBE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917. 81 
 
 Senator "Wadswoeth. I was prompted to ask that question, not 
 only from reading the statement of the New York Produce Exchange 
 to which I have referred, which is found on page 8079 of the Con- 
 gressional Record, but also after listening here yesterday to a de- 
 scription of the difficulties that have already been experienced in 
 the efforts to persuade the foreigner to accept the American standards 
 on cotton. Now, are we apt to encounter the same difficulties in 
 getting them to accept the American standardization of grain? I 
 do not know; I ask you about it. Is it a parallel case in any way? 
 
 Mr. Vrooman. I think Mr. Duvel can answer that question better 
 than I can. 
 
 Mr. DuvEL. I will say this, that our grain situation is entirely 
 different from the cotton situation, in that our grain is exported on 
 the basis of the American certificate is final. It goes over there, and 
 whatever condition it gets into 
 
 The Chairjian (interposing). The Secretary advises me that he 
 has nothing further to submit. I desire to incorporate in this record 
 a memoranda of changes recommended by the Secretary of Agri- 
 culture with reference to the grain amendment. 
 
 (The memoranda referred to above is here printed in full as fol- 
 lows:) 
 
 CHANGES SUGGESTED BY THE SECEETAK\' OF AGBICTJLTUHE, HOX. DAVIB F. HOL'STOX, 
 IX THE GKAIN-GKADES AMENDMENT TO THE AGHICTJLTUKAL APPBOPKIATIOX BILL. 
 
 1. Page 96, line 3, strike out " griules " iind substitute tlierefor "standards." 
 Page 96, line 6, strike out " grades " and substitute therefor '• standards." 
 Note. — The change in the title of the United States grain-grades act, while 
 
 not regarded as essential, is suggested because the standards to, be promulgated 
 by the Secretary of Agriculture are by the provisions of section 3 of the act 
 to be known and are in the other sections of the act referred to, as the 
 '■ official grain standards of the United States." 
 
 2. Page 96, line 6, after " act," insert the following : 
 
 " The word ' person ' wherever used in this act shall be construed to import 
 the plural or singular, as the case demands, and shall include individuals, asso- 
 ciations, partnerships, and corporations. The words ' in interstate or foreign 
 commerce ' wherever used in this act mean ' from any State, Territory, or Dis- 
 trict to or through any other State, Territory, or District, or to or through any 
 foreign country, or within any Territory or District.' When construing and 
 enforcing the provisions of this act, the act, omission, or failure of any official, 
 agent, or other person acting for or employed by any association, partnership, 
 or corporation within the scope of his employment or office shall in every case 
 also be deemed the act, omission, or failure of such association, partnership, or 
 corporation as well as that of the person." 
 
 Page 97, lines 1, 2, and 3, strike out " from any State, Territory, or District 
 to or through any other State, Territory, or District, or to any foreign coun- 
 try," and substitute therefor " in interstate or foreign commerce." 
 
 Page 97, line 18, after the word " shipped," insert the words " in interstate 
 or foreign commerce." 
 
 Page 98, line 4, after the word " shipped," insert the words " in interstate or 
 foreign commerce." 
 
 Page 99, line 13, strike out " which has been " and substitute therefor a 
 comma. 
 
 Page 99, line 14, at the beginning of the line, before the word " shipped," 
 insert " which has been." 
 
 Page 100, line 17, after the word " for," insert the words " shipment or 
 delivery for shipment in " ; strike out the word " and " and substitute therefor 
 the word " or." 
 
 Page 100, line 22, at the beginning of the line. Insert the words " shipment or 
 delivery for shipment in." 
 
 Note.— On page 97, lines 1 to 3, of the bill as now drawn, it is provided that 
 no person shall "ship or deliver for shipment from any State, Territory, or 
 
82 AGRIOFLTXTRE APPEOPKIATION BILL, 1917. 
 
 District to or through any other State, Territory, or IMstriet, or to any foreign 
 country " except under certain conditions. The language quoted does not 
 Include a shipment from a foreign country to this country, nor does it Include a 
 shipment which merely passes through a foreign country en route from a place 
 within the United States to a place v^ithln the State, Territory, or District 
 from which shipped, although the same shipment, if it were to pass through a 
 portion of the United States other than the State, Territory, or District from 
 which shipped, instead of through a foreign country, would l>e included. Sub- 
 sequently, however, the language quoted does not appear anywhere in the bill, 
 but in the places where otherwise it might appear, the words " interstate or 
 foreign commerce " or " interstate and foreign commerce " are used without 
 Qualifying words to limit their meaning and without being expressly defined 
 in the bill. As generally used these words are believed to be synonymous with 
 the words used in Article I, section 8, clause 3, of the Constitution, " commerce 
 with foreign nations and among the several States," and therefore have a 
 meaning much broader than seems to have been contemplated in this bill. 
 Since the words " interstate or foreign commerce " are not qualified or ex- 
 pressly defined in the bill, serious questions may arise by reason of the conflict 
 between the meaning generally given to them and the specific language used in 
 section 4, as stated in lines 1 to 3 on page 97. It is believed, therefore, that tlie 
 words " in interstate or foreign commerce " should be expressly defined and 
 used throughout the bill in every place where it nmy be found necessary to 
 describe the shipment involved. Thus uniformity would be obtained, and the 
 necessity for construction and interpretation in this respect would be avoided. 
 The definition suggested for insertion on page 96 contains the language .>E 
 section 4 in lines 1 to 3 on page 97, with the addition of the words " or through " 
 in order to bring within the provisions of the act a shipment or delivery Ifir 
 shipment to pass through a foreign country en route, mentioned above. It also 
 includes a shipment or delivery for shipnjent within any District or Territory. 
 The bill as now drawn applies to certain shipments from or to any IHstrict 
 or Territory. Congre.ss has the power of exclusive .iurisdiction over the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia and the power to make all newlftil rules and regulations 
 respecting the Territory- or other property belonging to the United States, and 
 it would seem that an act which would regulate traflic crossinf; the tine of a 
 Territory or District sliould also operate within such Territory or District. 
 
 The definition of " in interstate or foreign commerce " properly should lie 
 Inserted after that of the word " person," which, however, now appears in sec- 
 tion 11, the next to the last section in the bill. It would seem that the pro- 
 visions of section 11 should be placed at the beginning of the bill in order that 
 they may be clearly in mind and may be applied as the need arises in the course 
 of an orderly reading of the bill. 
 
 Therefore, the change first above suggested is proiiosed so that the matter 
 now contained in .section 11, together with the definition of the words " in inter- 
 state or foreign commerce " will follow the short title In line 6 of pmge 96. The 
 form of the language to be used, except that of the definition of " in interstate 
 or foreign commerce " is the same as that tised in the United States cotton- 
 futures act on page 76, beginning with line 9. The words "companies" and 
 " societies " contained in section 11 are eliminated for the reason tliat tliey 
 seem to be embraced in the meaning of the words " corporations " and " asso- 
 ciations," respectively. The word " partnership," which seems inadvertently 
 to have been omitted in section 11, has been inserted. 
 
 .Vccordingly, section 11 on pages 102 and 103 should be stricken out and the 
 other changes made as indicated. 
 
 3. Page 97, line 4, after the word " sold " insert a comma and strike out the 
 word "or"; after the word "sale" insert a conuua. followec) by the words "or 
 consigned for sale," 
 
 I'age 97, line 6, after the word " sold," at the end of the line, insert a conuua. 
 
 Page 97, line 7, strike out the word " or " at the beginning of the line : after 
 the word " sale " insert a comma, followed by the words " or consigned for sale." 
 
 I'age 97, line 9, after the word " sold " Insert a conuua and strike out the word 
 " or " ; after the w ord " sale " insert a comma, followed by the words " ov con- 
 signed for sale." 
 
 Page 97, line 16. after the word "sold" insert a comma and strike out the 
 word " or." 
 
 Page 97, line 17, after the word " sale " insert a conuua, followed by the 
 words " or consigned for sale." 
 
 Page 97, line 25, after the word " sold," at the end of the line, Insert a conuua. 
 
AGBICULTUEE APPilOPRIATION BILL, 1917. 83 
 
 Page 98, line 1, at the beginning of the line, sti-ik« out the worJ "or"; after 
 the word " sale " insert a comma, followed by the words " or consigned for sale." 
 
 Page 99, line 8, after tke word "sold" insert a comma and strike out the 
 word " or " ; after the word " sale " insert a comma, followed by the words " or 
 consigned for sale." 
 
 Page 99, line 13, at the end of the line, after the comma, insert " or consigned 
 for sale by grade." 
 
 Note.— Consignments are an important form of oomiBercial transactions in- 
 \olvins shipments of grain in interstate commerce. It wouM seem that the 
 provisions of the bill should apply to them as well as to sales and offers to sell. 
 There does Hot appear to be any logical or practical reason for an exception as 
 to such transactions. 
 
 4. Page 97, line 9, after the word " any " insert the words " person may ship 
 or deliver for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce any." 
 
 Page 97, lines 10 and 11, strike out the words " may be sold, offered for sale, 
 shipped, or delivered for shipment in interstate and foreign commerce," and 
 substitute therefor the words " which is sold, offered for sale, or consigned for 
 sale." 
 
 Note. The changes here suggested will be necessary in order that the pro- 
 viso which commences on line 8 may follow the form of the main provision of 
 the section as modified by using the words " interstate or foreign commerce " 
 and including consignments for sale , hereinbefore suggested and explained. 
 The purpose of the proviso clearly to except sales and offers to sell with the 
 addition of consignments for sale, by sample or by type, etc., will not be affected. 
 
 5. Page 98, line 6, after the word " party " insert the words " to the trans- 
 action." 
 
 Note. The parties here referred to have not previously been mentioned, and 
 the change is suggested in order to identify the parties who will have the riglit 
 to refer disputes to the Secretary of Agriculture. 
 
 6. Page 98, line 8, strike out the words " and certify." 
 
 Page 100, line 2, strike out the words " in every such case " and substitute 
 therefor the words " whenever an appeal shall be taken or a dispute referred to." 
 
 Page 100, line 3, after the word "Agriculture," insert the words " under this 
 act, he." 
 
 Page 100, line 8, after " grade," insert the words " signed by him or by such 
 officer or officers of the Department of Agriculture as he may designate, upon 
 an appeal taken or dispute referred to him under this act," followed by a 
 comma. 
 
 Note. — ^It is contemplated, under section 6, page 100, lines 7 to 13, of the 
 bill, that the determination of the Secretary of Agriculture upon appeals re- 
 ferred to him shall be set forth in findings. It is believed that the determina- 
 tion of the Secretary of Agriculture upon disputes referred to him under the 
 act also should be expressed in findings. The words " and certify," as used in 
 line 8, page 98, imply the issuance of a certificate, a term that is elsewhere 
 in the act applied to the action of licensed inspectors. The words " in every 
 such case," in line 2, page 100, clearly permit the Secretary of Agriculture to 
 assess costs only on the appeals from inspections mentioned in section 6. 
 It is believed that he should have the same right to assess costs as to dispi»tes' 
 mentioned in section 4, on page 98. Otherwise, the parties to such disputes 
 would receive the benefit of Government grading, the expense of which the 
 Government would have to pay without reimbursement from the parties. 
 
 As the places from which appeals may be taken or disputes referred to the 
 Secretary of Agriculture will be many and far apart, if it be required that all 
 findings issued under the act be signed by the Secretary of Agriculture, as 
 the language used now indicates, undoubtedly much time may elapse in many 
 cases before the parties will receive the formal evidence of the true grade of 
 the grain involved. It is believed that the Secretary of Agriculture should have 
 the authority, if found desirable in the interest of ex|)editious handling of dis- 
 putes and appeals, to permit officers designated by him to sign the findings 
 issued under the act. 
 
 7. Page 98, line 18, after the word " person," insert a comma and the words 
 " except, as permitted in sectton four," followed by a comma. 
 
 jjoTE. — Inasmuch as section 5 provides that no person shall represent that 
 any grain shipped or delivered for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce 
 is of a grade other than that shown by a certificate therefor issued under the 
 act and as that portion of section 4 which Is embraced in its third proviso 
 
84 AGEICULTUBE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917. 
 
 permits the sliiiiment of grain without inspection from a plaie at whic-li there 
 is no inspector to a place at wliich there is no inspector, there is an apparent 
 conflict between the two sections wliich may be avoided by making the change 
 above suggested. 
 
 8. Page 99, line 23, after " tlon " and before the word " to," insert tlie words 
 " and grading." 
 
 XoTE.- Tliis change is suggested in order clearly to express the purpose of the 
 provisimi that the appeal permitted is taken with reference to the grading of 
 the grain involved. 
 
 9. Page 100, lines 4 and ."), after the word " him," strike out the comma and 
 the words " which fee shall be refunded if the appeal is sustained." 
 
 Note. — Under the act it seems that the Government will not receive any 
 money for the services performed by licensed in.spectors and graders. Therefore 
 it is beli'ved tliat it should not be deprived of a reasonable fee for the expense 
 incurred by it in hearing and determining appeals from such in.spections, even 
 though tlie contention of the party taking the appeal be sustained. 
 
 If, however, it is not desired to make this change, the change hereafter 
 suggested slionld be made in lines 4 and 6. 
 
 10. Page 100, line 4, at the end of the line, after the word " fee," insert a 
 comma and the words " in case of an appeal," followed by a comma. 
 
 Page 100, line 6, after the word '' fees." insert a comma and the words " not 
 so refunded." followed by a comma. 
 
 Note. — It is suggested that these changes be made in case the previous sug- 
 gestions as to lines 4 and 5. on page 100, be not adopted. It is believed that the 
 refund of costs should be clearly limited to those collected in cases of appeals. 
 If all fees c.illected be deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts, it 
 is probable fiiat the money could not be drawn from the Treasury except in con- 
 sequence of an act of Congress making a specific appropriation therefor. In 
 order to jirevent this, the suggestion is made that the Secretary of Agriculture 
 be required to deposit in the Treasury only such moneys as are not refunded 
 under the act. 
 
 11. Page 100, lines 10 and 11, strike out the words " in all suits between such 
 Iinrties, or their privies." 
 
 Note. — In cases of appeals from inspections it is believed tliat there will be 
 only one party, the owner or person having custody of the grain involved, who 
 will take an appeal, and therefore in such cases only one of the parties to any 
 subsequent litigation in the United States courts may have been the party to 
 the appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture as a result of which his findings were 
 issued. Consequently it is believed that in such cases the findings -of the Sec- 
 retary of Agriculture would have little or no legal value in fact. 
 
 The suggestion made, however, would have a more far-reaching effect than 
 the original language. Such effect, however, would not appear to be in any way 
 objectionable, but, on the contrary, desirable. The determination of the Secre- 
 tary of Agriculture will be based upon a disinterested examination of the grain 
 involved in the appeal under conditions which warrant the presumption that 
 the grade found by him will be the true grade. The prima facie effect of the 
 findings would be limited as of the time and place specified therein, and no 
 party against whom the findings may be vised in evidence will be deprived of 
 any right or opportunity to introduce evidence in support of a different conten- 
 tion as to the grade. As said by Justice Lurton in Mobile. .Tackson & Kansas 
 City Railway Co. r. Turnipseed (219 U. S., .S.'i. quoted with ajiproval in 15ailev r. 
 Alabama, 219 U. S., 219) : 
 
 " If a legislative provision not unreasonable in itself prescribing a rule of 
 evidence in either criminal or civil cases does not shut out from the party 
 affected a reasonable opportunity to submit to the jury in his defense all facts 
 bearing upon the issue there is no ground for l\olding that due process of law 
 has been denied." 
 
 12. Page 100, line 17, after the word " grain " insert the words " and to certifi- 
 cate the grade thereof"; after the word "commerce" insert a comma followed 
 by the words " under this act and rules and regulations prescribed thereunder." 
 
 Note. — These changes are proposed in order more clearly to define Uie au- 
 thority of the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to the licenses to be issued 
 under the act. 
 
 13. I'age 100, line 20, after the word " society " insert the word " partner- 
 ship." 
 
 Note. — I'artnerships seem b,\- inadvertence to have been omitted from the 
 eiiumeratiou in the second sentence of section 7. 
 
AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1917. 85 
 
 14. Page 100, line 24, strike out tlie word " official " ; after the word " grades " 
 insert " of ttie official grain standards." 
 
 Note. — This change is suggested in order clearly to describe the grades men- 
 tioned according to the designation prescribed in section 3 of the act. 
 
 15. Page 101, line 7, after the word " him " insert the words " under this act." 
 Page 101, line 8, after the word " given " insert the words " to the licensee." 
 Page 101, line 9, strike out the words " any inspector has been found to be " 
 
 and substitute therefor the words " such licensee is." 
 
 ■'Page 101, line 12; strike out the word " inspection " and substitute therefor 
 the word " grade." 
 Page 101, lines 14 and 15, strike out the word " knowingly." 
 Note. — These changes are suggested in order more clearly to prescribe the 
 rights of the person whose license It is proposed to suspend or revoke. The 
 suggestion that the word " knowingly " be struck out is made for the reason 
 that otherwise a premium would be placed upon ignorance. There seems to be 
 no reason why a licensee should be able to plead lack of knowledge of the provi- 
 sions of the act and the rules and regulations prescribed thereunder. 
 
 16. Page 101, line 25, strike out the word " or." 
 Page 102, line 1, strike out the word " carelessly." 
 
 Note. — The use of the word " carelessly " in this criminal provision of the 
 act would seem to make simple negligence punishable as a misdemeanor for 
 which a fine of as much as $1,000 or imprisonment for as much as a year, or 
 both, may be imposed. 
 
 If grain be Improperly graded, a party who disagrees with such grading may 
 appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture and obtain his findings as to the true 
 grade, and the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized under the act to publish 
 his findings. In addition, if the licensed inspector has failed to perform his 
 duty properly his license may be suspended or revoked. 
 
 So far as carelessness is concerned, a sufficient deterrent would seem to be 
 afforded by the provisions for publication of the findings of the Secretary of 
 Agriculture and for the suspension or revocation of the license of the offending 
 inspector. 
 
 If simple negligence be made punishable as a misdemeanor it may be that 
 many persons in every respect qualified to perform the duties of an inspector, 
 and whom it would be desirable to license for that purpose, would refrain from 
 applying for such license through the fear that at some time within the period 
 of the running of the statute of limitation they might be brought into court on 
 this charge when perhaps all proof of which they might avail themselves in 
 their defense would have disappeared or been forgotten. It is suggested, for 
 the consideration of the committee, whether the other punishments provided 
 will not be sufficient without holding the licensee in fear of criminal liability. 
 
 17. Page 102, line 4, strike out the words " inspection or." 
 
 Note. — The certificate which will be issued under the act will be one of grade 
 rather than one of inspection, and is so called in other places in the act. 
 
 18. Page 102, lines 19 to 2o : 
 
 Page 103, line.'! 1 to 4, strike out all of section 11 and substitute therefor a 
 new section reading as follows : 
 
 " Sec. 11. That if any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this act shall, 
 for any reason be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction- to lie 
 invalid, such judgment shsill not affect, Impair, or Invalidate the remainder 
 thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, para- 
 f;raph, or part thereof directly involved In the controversy in which such judg- 
 ment shall have been rendered." 
 
 Note. — This is the same as section 23, part A, the United States cotton- 
 futures act, and section 32, part O. the United States warehouse act. The same 
 provision is contained in section 29 of the Federal reserve act, and in section 
 26 of the Clayton Antitrust Act. 
 
 Section 11 of the bill, as now drawn, is contained in the suggestion, sepa 
 rately made, to amend section 1, on page 96. 
 
 19. Page 103, line 7, strike out " $125,000 " and substitute therefor " $250,000." 
 Note. — On page 20, lines 3 to 5 of the bill, under " General expenses. Bureau 
 
 of Plant Industry," there is provided an appropriation for investigating the 
 handling, grading, and transportation of grain, etc., which is intended for use 
 by the department in its investigative work with reference to grain, regardless 
 of whether the United States grain-standards act is adopted or not. However, 
 if the United States grain-standards act be adopted, the facilities of the de- 
 partment, afforded by its expenditures under the Bureau of Plant Industry ap- 
 
86 AGRIOULTUBE APPKOPBIATION BILL, 1917. 
 
 propriation, will be used, as far as practicable, In connection with the enforce 
 ment of the United States grain-standards act. 
 
 The sum of $125,000, which is now provided by section 12 of that act, would 
 be Insufficient to take care of all of the additional work made necessary by 
 the adoption of the act. It is expected that It will be necessary to maintain 
 laboratories and field forces in 32 important grain markets of the country, and 
 that, when the act is fully in operation, the average expenditure annually will 
 be ,$10,000 for each of these stations, making a total of $320,000, in addition to 
 which the expenditures necessary in the city of Washington will amount to 
 the further sum of $50,000 for laboratory and administrative pui-poses. 
 
 The full amount of the sum of $370,000, which thus appears to be necessary, 
 win, perhaps, not be required in the first year; but it is estimated that at 
 least $250,000 will be needed for the purpose of enforcing the grain-standards 
 act, in addition to the sum of $109,920 asked for under " General expenses. 
 Bureau of Plant Industry." 
 
 20. Page 103, line 9, after the word " including " Insert tlie word " such " ; 
 and after the word " persons " insert the words " and means." 
 
 Note. These changes are suggested In order to make the appropriation avail- 
 able for all of the necessary expenditures in the city of Washington. 
 
 Senator Shafroth. I move that we recess now to meet in executive 
 session, at 2 o'clock this afternoon, for the purpose of taking up the 
 bill and finally disposing of all these matters. 
 
 (Thereupon, at 1.02 o'clock p. m., the committee recessed until 
 2 o'clock p, m.) 
 
 X