DIVISION OF MARKETS. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, The committee met at 11.45 o'clock a. m., Hon. John Lamb (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee is called for hearing two bills, No. 13568 and No. 16130. I believe Mr. Wickliffe desires to be heard on H. R. 13568, which was introduced by him. [H. R. 16310, Sixty-second Congress, second session.] IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. DECEMBER 19, 1911.—Mr. Beall of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture and ordered to be printed. A BILL To establish in the Department of Agriculture a Bureau of Markets. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be in the Department of Agriculture a bureau to be known as the Bureau of Markets and a director who shall be the head of said bureau, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and who shall receive a salary of five thousand dollars per annum. There shall also be in said bureau an assistant director, who shall receive a salary of three thousand dollars per annum, and who shall, in the absence of the director act as and perform the duties of the Director of the Bureau of Markets, and who shall also perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the said director of the bureau. There shall also be in said bureau a chief clerk, and such special agents, clerks, and other employees as may be authorized by law. SEC. 2. That the said director shall have power and authority to make, under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, investigation as to the systems of marketing farm products, cooperative or otherwise, in practice in various sections of the United States and in foreign countries, and shall collect data in reference thereto. The information and data thus collected shall be diffused throughout the various agricultural sections of the country and made available for the use of any individual or organization, either by the circulation of printed bulletins or by information given personally by special agents of the Bureau of Markets. It shall also be the duty of the said Director of the Bureau of Markets to make, under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, investigation of demands for farm products in various trade centers and the current movement of such products, with the view of furnishing information as to the best available markets, which information shall be distributed under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture. SEC. 3. That it shall be the duty of the Director of Markets to compile and. collect such information and statistics as may be valuable to enable the farmers to increase market facilities or adopt the best plans for obtaining the best possible price for their products, either by selling direct to consumers or otherwise. It shall be the duty of the Director of Markets, through the Secretary of Agriculture, to make an annual report to Congress, with any recommendations that may enable Congress to enact any additional necessary legislation. SEC. 4. That the Secretary of Agriculture shall make all necessary arrangements for offices and supplies for use of said Bureau of Markets. The compensation of clerks and employees, not otherwise specifically provided for in this Act, shall be fixed by the Director of said Bureau of Markets, subject to approval by the Secretary of Agriculture. [H. R. 13568, Sixty-second Congress, first session.] IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. AUGUST 14, 1911.-Mr. Wickliffe introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture and ordered to be printed. A BILL To establish in the Department of Agriculture a Bureau of Markets. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there is hereby established in the Department of Agriculture a bureau to be called the Bureau of Markets, and a director of said bureau who shall be thoroughly equipped for the duties of said office by technical education and experience, and who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and who shall receive a salary of six thousand dollars per annum; and there shall also be in the said bureau such experts and other employees as may from time to time be authorized by Congress. SEC. 2. That it shall be the province and duty of said bureau and its director, under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, to make diligent investigation of the methods of marketing farm products, and especially with regard to finding out and recommending the fairest and most direct method by which farm products may reach the consumer from the producer, by accumulating and distributing information on the subject in question and on the subject of the best methods and best markets for selling; and said bureau shall from time to time make such public reports of its work as the said Secretary of said department may direct, with the recommendation of such bureau. SEC. 3. That the Secretary of Agriculture shall provide the said bureau with furnished offices in the city of Washington, with such books, records, stationery, and appliances, and such assistants, clerks, stenographers, typewriters, and other employees as may be necessary for the proper discharge of the duties imposed by this act upon such bureau, fixing the compensation of such clerks and employees within appropriation made for that purpose. SEC. 4. That this Act shall take effect from and after its passage. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT C. WICKLIFFE, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. Mr. WICKLIFFE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, in appearing before you in behalf of the measure introduced by me on August 14, 1911, H. R. 13568, which measure has been referred to our committee, I wish to say at the outset that it is my opinion that is the function of the Agricultural Department of our Government to acquire and diffuse knowledge on the question of how to sell the products of the farmer, just as much as it is the duty of that department to acquire and disseminate knowledge concerning better methods of producing farm products. It is one thing to raise farm products. It is another thing to sell farm products, and it is just as much the duty of the great Agricultural Department of the United States Government to assist in disseminating knowledge concerning the latter as the former. We hear much to-day concerning the flocking to the cities of our rural population, and each recurring decennial census shows the trend to be toward the cities. Members of Congress have advanced many theories as to how to combat this centralization in the cities and the leaving of our farms. In my judgment one of the best ways to combat this evil tendency is by our Agricultural Department not only undertaking to instruct the farmer how to raise better crops, but also how to get a fair price for these crops when produced. What boots it if the farmer raises the most magnificent crop of potatoes or onions or cabbage or beans, etc., ever recorded before in our history if when he goes to sell these products the price he receives is not one-half of what the ultimate consumer in the end pays for them? If the gentlemen of this committee will admit, as I think they will, that these premises are correct, I feel that the first question I should take up in presenting this matter is the question of whether or not a condition exists which requires action; and this being established, the next point I wish to discuss is what that action should be. I will therefore now discuss the condition that confronts us: I will state that the first time my attention was particularly called to this question arose under conditions in my district incidental to the advent of the cotton-boll weevil. The production of cotton in the district which I represent went down as the result aforesaid, from 180,000 bales in 1904, to 10,000 bales in 1910. Our people were forced into other avenues of agriculture. They diversified in every direc tion; they raised a great deal of farm produce which comes under the practical heading of "truck farming." I found a great deal of complaint made by them, not that they could not grow these different kinds of products, but that when they grew them they could not get a fair return therefor, although they informed me that the final consumers in the city were paying practically twice the amount for their stuff that the farmer was receiving. While they had a general idea and a general knowledge concerning the verity of this proposition, yet it was not until quite recently that I was able to obtain figures that would tend to show this discrepancy did exist so that same could be put in concrete form and furnish information of a definite character. In July, 1910, I noticed in an article published by Mr. B. F. Yoakum, some figures on this subject that, were it not for the conservative source whence they came, might seem to be highly exaggerated. Among other things Mr. Yoakum states in the article referred to: After a careful investigation it is estimated that during the past year (meaning 1909) the farmers received, and the consumers of the city of New York paid, for the following articles of food approximately the amounts respectively shown: There are other articles mentioned, but I mention the above for brevity and because they are, as a rule, the products of the small farmer or truck grower, which is the class of farmer, which, in my opinion, is the most interested in this matter, as the discrepancy seems to be greater in his products than any others. I admit that these figures are simply astounding, but coming from such an extremely conservative source as Mr. Yoakum, I feel that it can not be said that they have been given without careful study of this question. If this condition prevails with reference to the mar kets of the city of New York, I do not doubt that it prevails to more or less extent in each of the cities in our Union. In the parish of Tangipahoa, in my district, our principal industry is truck growing. They are to-day shipping vegetables and berries to all parts of the Union, even shipping strawberries at this season as far west as Seattle, Wash., as far north at Chicago, and as far east as New York City. For years the best citizens of that parish have given thorough study, based on experience, to the marketing of farm products, and I have learned from both private conversation and by letter from such men as Samuel Hostetter, of Roseland; W. E. Hicks, of Ponchatoula, and others well qualified to speak, that_this problem is one of the greatest that confronts the producer. In a recent letter to me, Mr. Hostetter states (after referring to an editorial in the Southern Agriculturist on the subject) among other things: Will say we have too many leeches between the producers and consumers. I read statistics a few days ago that the farmers obtained six billion dollars in 1911 for all farm produce, but the consumer paid thirteen billion. I do not consider that a square deal. And neither do I, and I do not believe that any member of this committee or any Member of Congress would so consider it. Later on I will quote others to show that Mr. Hostetter's figures are correct. Mr. J. B. Martin, of Gonzales, La., manager of the Gonzales Truck Association, has also manifested much interest in the question of better markets, as well as numerous others in the district which I represent, until I am firmly convinced that not only my own district, but every rural district in the United States is interested in this question, for I believe that these conditions are general throughout the land. Proceeding upon the theory, however, that information and definite figures are what this committee wants and not general allegations as to conditions, I wish to quote a few extracts from the address of Mr. Yoakum, delivered at a meeting of the Texas Farmers' Congress, at College, Tex., on July 26, 1911. I quote [reading]: According to Government reports, the producer receives 46 cents for products of the farm for which the consumer pays $1. It is not encouraging to the young farmer boys to see that out of every dollar being paid for the products of the farm their share is only 46 cents, while the remaining 64 cents are distributed among others before these products reach the consumers' tables. Last year's agricultural products were worth nine billion dollars to the farmers. The Government used farm values in getting figures for this total. Assuming that the farmers kept one-third of the products for their own use, the consumers paid over thirteen billion dollars for what the producers received six billion dollars. The cost of getting the year's products from producers to consumers amounted to the enormous sum of seven billion dollars. The real problem to deal with is not high cost of living. It is high cost of selling. I feel that Mr. Yoakum has herein furnished a term, to wit: "The high cost of selling," which-as a matter of convenience and reference will be very generally used hereafter by all discussing this question. Mr. Yoakum further says in that address [reading]: The late S. A. Knapp, who had charge of farm-demonstration work in the Department of Agriculture, and who had more to do with the recent agricultural development in the South than any one man, used to say that one-eighth of successful farming required scientific knowledge, that three-eighths was an art, and the remainder was simply business. The business end of husbandry has been sadly neglected and that is the chief reason why agricultureal growth makes such a poor showing in comparison with other national development. |