The effect of this order and these sales could have been none other than to cheapen the cost of meat to the consumer, regardless of what loss might be sustained by the producer, who produced this meat at great expense and at the request of the Government. The effect of this power by the great majority to reduce prices until they would not be profitable might cause the reduction of production to that extent that it would absolutely injure not only the producer but the consumer. I am not in favor of Government control by commission or otherwise of private property. I believe it is a dangerous step, and when once done will be a stepping stone to that of undertaking to control every line of private business in the country by law, eventually leading us to socialism. In concluding this statement I wish to say to you_that_the_conclusions above are not based on hasty and immature thought. During the year 1918 I served on a committee to the Food Administration and Secretary of Agriculture, through which I became very familiar with the Food Administration's activities in meat and grain. I also served on a special committee which was created through and by the President to investigate the report of the Federal Trade Commission made to the President and to make such recommendations to him as this committee thought best. This committee was composed of the heads of five departments— the Tariff Commission, Food Administration, Labor Department, the Agricultural Department, and the Federal Trade Commissionwhich was in session daily for more than two weeks, in which the report made by the Federal Trade Commission was gone over thoroughly. These activities, together with 50 years of actual experience in producing, shipping, and handling live stock, I think, has given me a fair insight into the whole question. Now, before I go further, I did not add here a thought that might be worth while to bear down on, and that is we should cut bait or fish. Let us quit this agitation. If you are going to pass any laws, let us pass them and get it behind us. This has been going on for two years. The CHAIRMAN. Will you kindly restate your statement as to the attitude of the Attorney General and the conclusion reached by him which you made at the beginning of your statement. It had reference to the Attorney General appearing before some conven tion. Mr. SANSOM. Yes, sir [reading]: Whereas there has been an agreement entered into between the United States Government and the five so-called big packers; and Whereas that agreement had for its purpose, and was so stated by Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, the settlement of the agitation for legislation against the packer———— The CHAIRMAN. Attorney General Palmer stated that the matter was settled? Mr. SANSOM. Yes, sir; that that was the object of this injunctionto settle many of these vexing questions that we had been complaining of. The CHAIRMAN. To settle the question of prosecution, as well as of legislation, is that your understanding of it? Mr. SANSOM. I beg your pardon. The CHAIRMAN. That this was to settle it for all time to come or for the present? Mr. SANSOM. No, sir; I do not say for all time to come. The CHAIRMAN. For the present? Mr. SANSOM. I understood that remark The CHAIRMAN. To settle it as to legislation or prosecution? Mr. SANSOM. I understood Mr. Atwood to make the statement that if there were any other needed things needed to be done that it could be added to this injunction and would be done. The CHAIRMAN. You state positively that he made that statement in Texas? Mr. SANSOM. He made that statement in a speech. The CHAIRMAN. I am very much surprised. I will read you what he said before the Senate committee. I call your attention to page 43: Senator NORRIS. Is there anything in this decree, either directly or indirectly, that would prohibit the Government from proceeding against the packers or any of them in regard to any illegal action in the past, about meats, for instance? The ATTORNEY GENERAL. No, sir. On the contrary, that is specifically permitted; the Government may do so, and that is the very clause which I read, Senator. Let us follow this up. On page 44 of part 4 of the Senate hear ings on S. 2199: Senator KENYON. Then this does not interfere in any way with these cases. The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Not at all. Indeed, anybody establishing that unfair practice can go into this court and get his remedy instanter. And, then, on page 46: The CHAIRMAN. Of course, they have never been accused of being in the retail business, as far as I know. The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Yes; they have. They have been accused of engaging in it and they have been accused of having designs upon it. There is a great deal of evidence of the unfair manner in which they had used that competition and the tendency to destroy competition as a result of it. Then, further down on the page, the Attorney General said: I have made no agreement with these gentlemen of any kind or character with respect to legislation, of course. I would not think of doing such a thing. But I have made no suggestion as to what my position would even be with respect to legislation, and I have made no agreement or arrangement or suggestion with anybody as to what the future course of the Government is going to be with respect to litigation. I could go into court to-morrow against these people if I desire to do so. Mr. SANSOM. He could go in to-morrow. The CHAIRMAN. You stated that he said it had been settled. Mr. MCLAUGHLIN of Nebraska. He said he could go into court to-morrow. Mr. SANSOM. That is exactly what he stated there. I do not want to misquote it. The CHAIRMAN. You stated that he said it was settled. Mr. SANSOM. That is exactly what he stated, that any additional legislation that was desired-do not misunderstand what I intended. to convey that is what he said down there. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. SANSOM. So there is no contention about that. The CHAIRMAN. Let us get all of the evidence in, and then we will discuss it: Senator NORRIS. In your examination of the evidence that was submitted to you by the Federal Trade Commission, and other evidence which you examined did you reach the conclusion, as a lawyer, that the packers or any of them had violated the criminal statutes or were criminally liable? The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I think they had violated the Sherman antitrust law. That is both a criminal and a civil statute, Senator. Senator NORRIS. Under your settlement, while you have made no agreement, of course, you do not expect to proceed against them criminally for that violation, do you? The ATTORNEY GENERAL. This is the first time I have ever announced it, but I do not expect to proceed against them criminally. Senator NORRIS. So that this agreed decree there is, as far as the Department of Justice is concerned, at least, to forgive any criminal offense they may have committed. Then here is Senator France's statement on page 48: Here, as it will appear to the people generally, was a group of multimillionaires who were suspected of having committed a crime, who, as a result of this agreement, are practically given immunity by the Department of Justice. Now, on the other hand, the Department of Justice this very day is sending out its spies to arrest and prosecute the members of labor unions-poor, misguided people who have not been instructed in our institutions, and who are plotting unwisely against them; and I wanted to ask whether any of these poor people who are caught in the meshes of the law were brought before the department and an agreement entered into by which they would be granted immunity in the future. Then here is a question by Senator Kendrick: Mr. RAINEY. Did the Attorney General answer Senator France when he asked that question? Why not read it all? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Here is something about the stockyards: Senator KENDRICK. I ask of you if such a commission would not have the effect of tremendously strengthening the force and the effect of this decree? The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I should think it might. It might be in a position to advise the courts. And yet you tell us that he told you in Texas that the whole matter was closed. Mr. SANSOM. I beg your pardon. The CHAIRMAN. You say that as a stockman? Will you stand by that statement? Mr. SANSOM. Please quote me correctly. I called your attention to the statement he made down there, which is quoted there exactly as he said. Mr. RAINEY. You do not mean the Attorney General? Mr. SANSOM. I am talking about Mr. Atwood. Mr. Atwood is the man. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Atwood has nothing to do with this. I understood you to say the Attorney General. Mr. SANSOM. Then, probably we had better pass it, because I do not know Mr. Palmer. I would not know him if I saw him. I only know him like most other people do. The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say the Attorney General. Mr. SANSOM. I should have used the words "The Assistant to the Attorney General." I believe that is what he is. Mr. RAINEY. And you referred to Mr. Atwood? Mr. SANSOM. To Mr. Atwood. Mr. Palmer made no statement and has not been in Texas, I think, at all. The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say the Attorney General. Mr. SANSOM. Sometimes I do not add enough words. This Mr. Atwood is the man who handled this proposition, as I understood it, very largely. The CHAIRMAN. You have Mr. Atwood's statement, and you also have the Attorney General's statement. Do you think this whole thing should be put back of us? The Attorney General says that they were guilty, and yet he says he has no intention of prosecuting them and guilty not only in one respect but in many respects. Mr. SANSOM. I think the conclusion of the affair was a very good one. It is further than I would have asked them to have gone. I think it was a very good one. The CHAIRMAN. What? Mr. SANSOM. The conclusion-the decree of the court. I thought you asked what I want to do now. The CHAIRMAN. I asked if you wanted to put it all back of us now? Should we forget and forgive what has been done and have no further legislation or prosecution? Mr. SANSOM. I have no particular malice in my soul for wrongs that people may have done or may not. I listened to Mr. Atwood and I listened to other statements in this affair. In so far as the stockyards being taken away from the packers is concerned, I would not have agreed to that if I had my way. The CHAIRMAN. What have you to say about further legislation or prosecution? Mr. SANSOM. I say we do not want any further legislation at this time or prosecution, or any other disturbance. The CHAIRMAN. You think where it is admitted or is charged by the Department of Justice-that they have been violating the law they should be given an immunity bath? Mr. SANSOM. I think there is plenty of evidence to the effect that the Attorney General selected his first lawyers to examine that, and he told them there was nothing in it. I think there is plenty The CHAIRMAN. That is your theory? Mr. SANSOM. And that he could not The CHAIRMAN. The Attorney General says nothing about that. Mr. SANSOM (interposing). That there was nothing in it and that they could not make a prosecution stick, and my information is that this injunction was brought about by the use of a gun, holding it on the packer, to the effect that he would be put in the hands of a receiver unless he signed it. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any evidence of that? Mr. SANSOM. I heard Mr. Atwood say so. The CHAIRMAN. Do you charge that the Attorney General held them up? Mr. SANSOM. I am just telling you what I heard Mr. Atwood say. I am not, sir. I am talking about what I heard the man who settled this proposition say himself. The CHAIRMAN. I have given you the evidence of the Attorney General and you have it by hearsay. Mr. SANSOM. I rather expect that Mr. Atwood knew more about it than the Attorney General, from my idea about it. He is the man who handled it and was employed especially for that purpose. The CHAIRMAN. You think, although the Department of Justice believes they are guilty, that they should be allowed to continue with nothing further being done, and that there should be no prosecutions. Mr. SANSOM. I do not quite get your statement. The CHAIRMAN. I will read the Attorney General's statement. Mr. SANSOM. No: you need not do that. The CHAIRMAN. It is very convincing. Mr. SANSOM. I am simply stating here what I believe. I believe that the injunction obtained by the Attorney General and now a law and in effect should be tried out before we go further. I see no way of getting any results by starting some criminal prose utions when the meat production of this country is threatened more seriously than ever I knew it before. Let me tell you why I make that statement. The CHAIRMAN. I will quote the Attorney General. You have told us what you think. The Attorney General said: I think they had violated the Sherman antitrust law; that is both a criminal and a civil statute. Mr. SANSOM. That is his opinion, and if he is willing to drop it where it is I am not going to jump on him for not carrying out a criminal prosecution, when he did get results that he probably could not have gotten if he had undertaken it. The CHAIRMAN. You think that when they sign up, although the Attorney General says they are guilty and believes they are guilty Mr. SANSOM (interposing). Most people will sign up when you threaten them with putting them in the hands of a receiver and taking their business over, and will agree to a good many things that they would not probably otherwise agree to. I am not on the jury and I am not going to criticise Attorney General Palmer's action in this matter for not criminally prosecuting the packers. If you want to know just what I think, I think he did the very best thing possible under the circumstances. Now, does that answer the question? I think he got us results he could not have gotten if he had prosecuted them criminally. He never would have gotten them if he had prosecuted them criminally. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to know whether you think they should be prosecuted? Mr. SANSOM. No: I do not think so. Will that satisfy you? Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Sansom, I was somewhat curious to know what you thought ought to be done with this canned corn beef and other supplies which the Government had on hand after the armistice which were declared surplus. Mr. SANSOM. I am glad you ask the question. I thought and think yet and believe yet that what is left ought to have been exported to Europe where they needed it, without breaking the price to the man who produced it in this country at great loss. Mr. ANDERSON. I was just wondering when this break that resulted from putting this stuff on the market began. I have not been able to discover it. |