Obrázky stránek

Well, suppose that we have the right to do cooperative selling, now, and cooperative buying; we have the laws so amended-and they are beginning to be amended all over through the States. They are doing it in my State; in Lansing and other cities they are forming these associations, and we find hundreds of these cooperative selling agencies. One hundred farmers have combined, and coming together they can combine to fill all the wants of these cooperatives, just as it is done in the Old World; and there are thousands of them. This is not new stuff. It is history, and not new history, in the Old World.

Now, gentlemen, I have not talked to you about the technical, legal aspects of this thing, but I do believe that this law would do nó harm. I do believe that it would give an opportunity to do cooperative selling and cooperative buying.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Mr. Campbell, I wish you would talk about the technical, legal aspect of it. That is what is troubling us. We are with you in spirit.

Mr. CAMPBELL. What is the particular thing that you would like to have me speak of, Mr. Chairman?

Senator DILLINGHAM. I can not enumerate them. You have heard them discussed. You have been sitting here.

Senator WALSH of Montana. You are in the milk business?

Senator Walsh of Montana. We would like to know whether you would like to be permitted to organize an association which would. have a monopoly of the milk business of the city of Chicago ?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; if it resulted in a lower price-not one that would be harmful.

Senator Walsh of Montana. No, no

Mr. CAMPBELL. No; now, I object to the technical definition that you place on it. There are monopolies that are helpful

Senator Walsh of Montana. I do not put any definition on it at all.

Mr. CAMPBELL. And there are monopolies that are hurtful. There are monopolies that are good monopolies.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Yes; we had the distinction, one time, between good trusts and bad trusts.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; and now we are seeking to deny the remedy to the farmers because possibly there may be a phantom one in the future somewhere. Senator Walsh of Montana. If you entertain that idea, you are in

We want to fix it so that the farmers will get all they ask for, and those who want to set up monopolies will not have an opportunity to do so. That is what we would like to do.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Politics, Senator, in the cities, has become such that while there are a lot of good cities, there are a lot of cities that are not above it. But the district attorneys in half a dozen cities have made it their theme to get into the mayoralty or to get into some other office, the denying of women and children milk, etc. We have never charged, in any city at any time, an unfair price--never. We have been below every other commodity so far as cost of production is concerned.

One one of my farms to-day I have about 30 cows. They are giving 600 pounds of milk a day. If I were to go to any carpenter or to any mason or any painter or any skilled operator in my city to-day and say to them, “I will drive my cows to your door every


morning and night and you can milk them.” If it was one man, it would take him all day to milk 30 pails full of milk; and he would begin to count to see whether he could afford to do it or not, and he would find out that he could not do it. He is getting a dollar an hour for his time as a carpenter or a mason.

He would get about $6.60 out of that 600 pounds of milk; that is all he would get, and he would work all day. Yet the milking of those cows is only onesixth of the cost of that milk to the farmer.

Yes; we do want the right, in spite of those politicians in the cities that are threatening us with penalties because they say we combine for selling agencies. Yes; we do want relief; we want a fair relief, and nothing more than that.

Senator DILLINGIIAM. In your construction of this bill, your proposed law, do you understand that it does or does not give the Secretary of Agriculture the power to determine what is a reasonable price for farmers' commodities?

Mr. CAMPBELL. My construction of that, Senator, is--

Senator DILLINGHAM. I wish you would tell me frankly what you think it is.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; and I have heard the questions of Senator Walsh. I am not questioning the motives of you men. I am talking in plain terms.

Senator DILLINGHAM. You can not accomplish as much in that way as if you would come down to the plain question.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I have heard the question asked, “What kind of an order will the Secretary of Agriculture make?

Senator DILLINGHAM. I have not got to that. I want to bring to your attention the question whether or not in the administration of this law it gives to the Secretary of Agriculture the power to determine what is a reasonable price for a commodity.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; I think it gives him this power, Senator. I do not think it gives him the power, or anybody else, nor am I in favor of giving anybody the power to fix a certain price. I think that is rank socialism, and I am against it.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Now, I understand you that far. Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. Senator DILLINGHAM. Now, if that is so, how is he to determine whether the prices are unduly enhanced by their action?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Here is my idea about it. I am assuming that I am the Secretary of Agriculture, and that complaint has been made to me that these conditions exist with regard to a certain association. It seems to me-I may be wrong about it, and this is only my thought about it, but it seems to me- I could make the inquiry as to whether those farmers out there have fixed a price that is so far beyond their cost of production that they are profiteering; I could find, and by my inquiries I could try to ascertain, if possible, about what would be a reasonable price. I can find out what would be a reasonable price to give them a fair and reasonable proflt. I could find that in my own mind.

Senator DilliNGHAM. Would you not be compelled to do that before you would be willing to make the order ?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; I think so, Senator. I am quite of that opinion. Now, what kind of an order? It strikes me I could state in my order as to what I had found, that a reasonable profit could

have been made at so much, we will say, or as contended, maybe, by the contestants. I could say that that in my opinion would be reasonable, and "Now I order you to desist from your practices from the proceedings—that you have done,” without setting the price particularly. Now, it seems to me that beyond that it can go to the court. If they refuse to obey, he can turn it over to the court.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Obey what?

Mr. CAMPBELL. If they refuse to come down to that price upon those conditions. Now, they are all based, of course, upon the conditions that exist. It seems to me that is not a difficult thing at all to do, and without price fixing. I do not believe in price fixing. I think there is no end to it, where you start in. I did not believe in it during the war, and I do not believe in it now. I think it would mean that this bill would be absolutely unconstitutional.

Senator DILLINGHAM. He issues the order, ordering them to cease and desist from asking the prices they have asked ?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; the unreasonable prices.

Senator DILLINGHAM. It has taken three or four months to reach that result. Supposing they do cease and desist, but fix another price that is still unreasonable?

Mr. CAMPBELL. No; I say in my order—I would say—that a certain price--I would come to it. That is just what I would do.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Let me understand. It comes right around to this, that the Secretary has got to fix what he thinks is a reasonable price, and the dealers must conform to that?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, they want to--yes; I would say not exactly that. I do not quite say that. I think that can be evaded by

Senator DILLINGHAM. How, otherwise ?
Mr. CAMPBELL. It is not price fixing.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Otherwise they might charge a slightly lower price or a considerably lower price, but yet they would not come to the price that is fixed in his mind and mentioned in his order as. being one that he deems reasonable. I am trying to get your opinion on this bill you are offering, practically. That is what you want and what I want.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; and I think if you should allow the Secretary of Agriculture to fix the price that they should charge, of course that. could not remain. It might not be permanent. The conditions. might change in a week. Feed prices, labor prices, and a thousand and one things, might change.

Senator DILLINGHAM. But he can not hear a case except when it. comes before him.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. “Under these conditions, with feed so much and labor so much, under these conditions I find that that price would have been reasonable. You have charged so much. I order you to desist.” It does not say what price you must charge. I do not think he should say that you shall charge a particular amount. They may charge below that; but if they charge above, then he will turn it over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is a court of equity, really. All that our Department of Justice has done with

any of our great trusts was to try to dissolve them; and they charged even more after they were dissolved than before. Nobody was ever put in jail, except a farmer, under the antitrust laws.

[ocr errors]


Senator DILLINGHAM. What farmer has been put in jail ?
Mr. CAMPBELL. At Cleveland.
Senator DILLINGHAM. That was under the State law?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Under the State law, yes, sir, similar to the Federal law. The best men in the State were thrown into jail-into a vermininfested room shared by common criminals or degenerates. That is the condition that exists.

Gentlemen, we do want relief. The farmers of the country are united, all over the Nation, in this matter. There is not a dissenting voice, that I know, among the farmers; nor do I know of any consumers anywhere in the country that are not willing that it should be passed-not one. It is only the middlemen in the country that are opposing it.

(A supplementary statement, later submitted by Mr. Campbell, is here printed, as follows:)



In the hearing June 10, Senator Walsh asked whether the producers would form a monopoly.

The question is unfair, because it does not desne monopoly. There are thousands of industries, business enterprise: conducted in districts and localities without competition that are not a disadvantage to the consumers and not had per se.

There are others that by their practices are bad. Practically all public service corporations are monopolies, and the very fact that hut one of a kind exists in the community is helpful rather than injurious—telephone, street-car service with universal transfers, etc.

Milk distribution, vegetable and grocery deliveries, if they could be conducted without the great waste now existing would greatly benefit consumers, provided such unified business could be conducted without inordinate greed and profit.

In the bill before you that possibility has been provided against. We are the only business or industry in the country other than public service corporations that has said to the Government:

"Here we are, 6,400,000 farmers, willing to place our business upon the tahle before you for dissection, for analysis. We want hut reasonable prices, and the right to market our produce as husiness men, in a business way. We place ourselves under your supervision and direction,”

What other business in this country has shown such willingness?
But you ask:
“Do you want to form a monopoly?"
Let me ask you what you mean by “a monopoly''?
To illustrate:

The farmers living around a city supplying milk for the city form a milk producers' association. Every milk producing farmer within a radius of 50 or 100 miles asks to join the association because of the economies that can be effected through collecting the milk, pasteurizing, shipping and delivery of the same to consumers.

If such organization be effected eliminating waste, cutting out much overhead expense, doing away with the profiteering middlemen who now eat up 55 to 60 cents out of every dollar's worth of milk, would you call it a monopoly per se?

Or would it depend upon whether the farmers tried to take advantage and to unduly enhance prices for their milk?

In the business world, two-thirds of all trade is through understandings, combinations, gentlemen's agreements, and corporate control that amount to price fixing by conspiracy. To-day, not the farmers, but all the dealers of a city have the same price for con

'The combinations of trade are everywhere, in every business except among farmers.

If you define “monopoly?' to mean a control over a commodity by which its price to consumers may be unduly enhanced, we say “No, we do not want monopoly.

If you define “monopoly merely by size, by numerical or proportional strength alone, we ask to be allowed the same privilege of organization, growth, and operation that other industries enjoy.



The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Holman, do you wish to be heard ?

Mr. HOLMAN. Mr. Marsh, one of the Washington farm representatives, has another appointment and we would like you to hear him now. Senator DILLINGHAM. Let him come

We will hear Mr. Marsh.




Senator DILLINGHAM. The committee is rather anxious to complete these hearings to-day, Mr. Marsh, so if you will condense as much as possible we will be obliged.

Mr. MARSH. I will do my best to do so, Mr. Chairman.

I appear in behalf of the Farmers' National Council and the American Cooperative Commission, which includes a great many of the large labor organizations, particularly the railway brotherhoods and shop crafts, and some other labor organizations.

I have not been able to attend all these hearings, but I wanted very much to state that it seems to us essential, from the viewpoint of the producer and also of the consumer—and almost no less of the consumer--that some such legislation should be enacted.

It seems to me, without going into the legal technicalities of the situation, that we must recognize the inherent difference between a corporation with millions and scores of millions of dollars of capitalization, and the farmers, who to-day at least—and for a long time past it has been substantially true—are in a very desperate economic condition.

We are just sending out from our offices to-day a second series of information blanks to try to establish direct trading between farm producers and city consumers, realizing that that is certainly a much needed step in the efficiency and economy of distribution.

This bill, it seems to us, is similarly a very much needed step for efficiency and economy of distribution. We do not need to go into any lengthy discussion or to adduce any facts and figures, as to the wastefulness of our present system of distribution. We realize that this bill establishes a new principle, and it seems to us, because we have discussed it very carefully in some of our conferences—the principles of this bill—that it is an honest effort to secure such recognition by legislation, of famers' cooperative organizations, as will facilitate this direct trading, and also tend, in my judgment, in the long run, perhaps not immediately, but in the long run, to reduce prices, with advantage to both producer and consumer.

The new policy which apparently--and it seems to me it is clearly established—is presented, is this; that before the Attorney General of the United States-or, of course, the representative of his officeshall prosecute any organization of farmers organized under the terms which comply with the two conditions stipulated here:

First. That no member of the association is allowed more than one vote because of the amount of stock or membership capital he may own therein; or,

Second. That the association does not pay dividends on stock or membership capital in excess of 8 per centum per annum.

« PředchozíPokračovat »