various States with intelligent people agreeing to patronize their home industries would destroy the hold of the Beef Trust, for the reason that whenever they seek to sell and buy beef they are out of business; and if the consumer would buy and the producer would sell to a concern that would be satisfied with a fair profit, that would settle it. And if it happened that this enormous and unearned increment, for instance, was the result of cold storage, then the farmers themselves could easily enough put up cold-storage plants, as it has been ascertained from investigation that they would be able, in connection with electric-lighting plants or car lines, to maintain coldstorage plants at a limited expense; and if it is the result of transportation, we can reach it. I believe that the mere publicity of a combination like this will, in a great measure, eradicate it. That is not true, of course, where a concern owns it own raw materials, but that does not exist in connection with the handling of what the farmers. produce.

Mr. BEALL. I am very much obliged to the gentleman from Kentucky for his suggestion, and I think it is worthy of very serious consideration by the committee. I do not know what the trouble is, and I do not know that there is any trouble, but there are certainly grounds to suspect that there is something wrong and sufficient on which to predicate a very careful examination by this committee to determine whether or not something can be accomplished by legislation. I am sure Mr. Yokum would like to come before the committee. He is in touch with a large number of other people that are interested in this subject, and he has given special thought and attention to it for months and years; and from letters received from him and copies of letters that have been written to him, that he has forwarded to me, I know that he is in touch with a great many intelligent people who have studied this question and can give the committee the benefit of that study.

Now, I do not know whether the full committee would want to conduct these hearings, or whether they would want to designate a subcommittee for the purpose of having the hearings and making its investigation and report the conclusions with the testimony adduced, to the full committee. Either plan is entirely satisfactory to me. But, I do believe that it is a matter of such importance that we ought to go into it for the purpose of getting additional information.

Mr. HAUGEN. If you are interested in the high prices the consumers have to pay. why should we limit this investigation to farm. products? It is not of as much importance to the farmer to know why he is paying exorbitant prices for his harvesters, and whatever else he buys in the way of farm implements and the things he needs on the farm as it is to the consumer in the city to know why he is paying exorbitant prices for the things he buys?

Mr. BEALL. Of course he is interested in that.

Mr. HAUGEN. Now, the gentleman from Kentucky has referred to the beef trust. He is very well aware of the fact that in the west, and I take it all over the country, wherever there is any butcher undertakes to kill local beef and sell it, the trust goes into that town and sells for half what it costs the local butcher to dress his beef and drives him out of business.

Mr. STANLEY. This is the only Government on earth-the only civilized Government-that would permit that sort of thing. The only thing that saved your independent oil people was the fact that they shipped oil to Germany, and as soon as the Standard Oil attempted to undersell, the German Government let it know that if it sold oil for one price in one part of Germany it would have to sell for the same price in all parts.

Mr. HAUGEN. It occurs to me that you are all the time investigating the farmer, and that you ought also to include the so-called trusts. Mr. STANLEY. I would suggest right there that you take the Harvester Co. It is now under investigation by the Department of Justice, and in process of dissolution. I am advised.

Mr. HAUGEN. But it has been under investigation all these years and goes on just the same and always will.

Mr. STANLEY. Now, Mr. Haugen, in addition to that, the farmer does not sell anything to the Harvester Trust, but the farmer, so far as the Harvester Trust is concerned, is just an ultimate consumer. Mr. HAUGEN. Yes.

Mr. STANLEY. I do not think the Department of Agriculture has it within its legitimate domain to investigate combinations in restraint of trade. That would be the province of the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Corporations and the Federal Congress rather than the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. HAUGEN. By reply to that I would say that the Agricultural Department has not the power under the Constitution or law, but a certain department has the Department of Justice, or whatever department it may be. But my contention is that our duty is just as much to the farmer who buys the implements as it is to the consumer in the city who buys the farm products. If we investigate the cost of supplies to the consumer in the city, why limit it to the goods of the farm? Why not include clothing under that and street car fares and everything else?

Mr. STANLEY. Mr. Haugen, I believe that the Harvester Co. will be reached, and be reached very shortly, by some legislation. For instance, I have quite a number of reports I would like to show you, showing where the International Harvester Co. operates as common carriers. Now, that question has been thoroughly investigated by the committee that Mr. Beall and I are on, and that will be gone into immediately; and I am advised by a person who I think is entirely reliable that the legal status of that concern will be investigated. And in the same way I believe that combinations in restraint of trade in the steel and iron business will be thoroughly ventilated before any great length of time; but it is a matter over which the Federal Congress may have no control, as it is purely an intrastate transaction. The International Harvester Co. is clearly open to the law now existing, because in its very essence it is an interstate-coumerce concern. It is not only a producer of interstate-commerce traffic, but it is an interstate-commerce carrier, and there are half a dozen ways to reach the Harvester Co., but where a man forms a combination for the purpose of keeping up the price of cabbage and onions and does it within the borders of a single State, that is a matter for State control.

Mr. HAUGEN. I am glad to know that an investigation is being made and that we may look for some remedy of the harvester business

and the barbed-wire business, because they are the things that the farmers buy.

The CHAIRMAN. We have our hands full in considering the proposition before us this morning and we can not go into these other

matters.

Mr. HAUGEN. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I understood the gentleman from Louisiana or not, but my understanding is that it is his idea to devise some plan that will make it possible for the farmers or producers to sell directly to the ultimate consumer.

Mr. WICKLIFFE. My idea is simply this, I will say to the gentleman. There is too great a difference existing now in the price which the producer of farm products receives and that which the ultimate consumer of farm products pays

Mr HAUGEN. We all agree to that.

Mr. WICKLIFFE (continuing). And this bill restricts the investigation strictly to the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, so far as this matter is concerned, and proposes to let them have plenty of authority to investigate and find out what the matter is. Mr. HAUGEN. Then I am right in my conclusion.

Mr. WICKLIFFE. I will say this to the gentleman, that I am satisfied in my own mind that this difference does exist; and as to how it may be remedied is a matter that we hope to get at by means of establishing this division or bureau, and letting them work it out.

Mr. LEVER. Let me ask the gentleman this question: This bill is predicated or your idea is predicated upon the thought that the farmers, on account of those large discrepancies which have been shown by the figures, are not getting for their raw products what they ought to get in view of the price paid by the ultimate consumer. Mr. WICKLIFFE. That is the idea.

Mr. LEVER. And your idea is to help the farmer in investigating the matter, and possibly to help the consumer?

Mr. WICKLIFFE. Yes; undoubtedly. I claim this, that the final consumer might be helped, and in all probability will be, because if there is this difference existing, and it is done away with, the farmer will get a better price, and he can then afford to sell for a less price, possibly, to the consumer by having him come in more direct touch; because here is 54 cents out of every dollar that is now disappearing between the producer and the final consumer.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say to the committee that we will have hearings on this question and I will ask Mr. Wickliffe and Mr. Beall to let us know when these gentlemen can be here and we will summon the Secretary at any time and hold these hearings at your pleasure. The committee then, at 12 o'clock noon, went into executive session.

ENCOURAGEMENT OF AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE, AND THE

INDUSTRIAL ARTS IN THE VARIOUS STATES.

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, April 10, 1912.

Hon. John Lamb (chairman) presiding.

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN A. MAGUIRE, OF NEBRASKA.

Mr. MAGUIRE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to call up for a hearing before the committee at this time a bill which I introduced, H. R. 18005. Mr. W. R. Mellor, of Lincoln, Nebr., is here, and would like to be heard on the bill, and I feel that the committee would profit by listening to him. He is secretary of the Nebraska State Board of Agriculture and also secretary of the National Association of State Fairs, and I know from his large and successful experience in managing State fairs that it will be a very great pleasure to listen to him. Before calling on Mr. Mellor I will make a few observations on the proposed legislation.

The bill is one providing that the Government shall appropriate for a building on each State fair grounds where the State itself through appropriation provides for the support of the State fair. I consider this a measure which will give a great impetus to the State exhibitions of not alone agricultural exhibits but exhibits of all kinds. The State fair in practically every State now has a permanent location with fixed plant and buildings. Mr. Mellor and others associated with him had much to do with originating the ideas in the bill and much credit is due him for the program of education which he has carried on in promoting the proposed legislation.

Fairs, State and county, are no longer limited by the original idea of an exhibit of farm products, but the exhibition is made up of every form of exhibits from the farm, factory, and mercantile establishments. In four or five days of a State fair quite a liberal education may be secured on what the progress of the year has brought forward, not alone in the State but in every line of human advancement over the whole country.

A great meeting of this kind, with men from every part of the State, with the ideas and information gained and there exchanged for the information from every one else, certainly gives renewed inspiration to the people of the whole State. The benefits of such a meeting can not be fully calculated in the material and intellectual improvement of the State.

The United States has expended millions in the past for the national and international exhibitions, when only a small fraction of the people can attend, while in this measure, the United States is asked to cooperate with the States, on their own fair grounds, in erecting something permanent to aid in these exhibitions of material and