The committee this day met, Hon. Gilbert N. Haugen (chairman)

presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Marsh, do you desire to be heard, briefly, this morning?

Mr. MARSH. Yes, sir; with your permission.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. BENJAMIN C. MARSH, SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, FARMERS' NATIONAL COUNCIL, BLISS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. MARSH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have been shown a letter addressed to the chairman of this committee, by Mr. Levy Mayer, who is of counsel for Armour & Co., in which he refers to my testimony before the committee on March 6, a transcript of my statement embodying, he says, "what purports to be a copy of a letter from ex-Federal Trade Commissioner Fort to Federal Trade Commissioner Murdock, dated July 19, 1919." I want, Mr. Chairman, to register right here my protest against having this big attorney for the packers impugn the accuracy of my statement. This was a letter from Commissioner Fort to Commissioner Murdock that appeared in the Congressional Record, I think, July 21. I read from that record. I called attention to that fact in my testimony and asked why the Attorney General had not instituted proceedings to prosecute those responsible on behalf of Armour & Co. for attempting to defraud the Government of taxes.

This letter came out about six months ago and probably it came to the attention of Armour & Co. at that time. There was no denial, so far as I am aware, of the accuracy of the charges and of the letter of Commissioner Fort to Commissioner Murdock at that time. In this letter to you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayer attempts to make it out that the conversation with Commissioner Fort referred to in the letter was some time previous, if I understand it, over a year, so that the statute of limitations would have run by now and that Armour & Co. could not have been prosecuted. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that is the case. Mr. Mayer makes this statement:

The statement in Mr. Fort's letter, that "the desired information (about this Argentine company) was demanded and secured without any further delay," is also inaccurate because the desired information was not furnished.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the committee will feel that it is almost incumbent upon them and certainly only fair to the American people that they should find out why Armour & Co., who have been making such vigorous attacks upon the Federal Trade Commission, refuse to give to a member of that commission the information for which he asks.

We have been discussing profits here, and I will request the committee that they ask Mr. Mayer to come here and explain this South American deal, and also as Commissioner Fort is no longer with the Federal Trade Commission, that Commissioner Murdock be asked to come here, if the committee sees fit to do so, and explain this whole situation, because there is a great deal back of it. I do not want to trespass upon your time and courtesy to go into any detail.

I point out that the letter I read into the record was a letter made public, and there is "something rotten in Denmark" when a denial of the accuracy of that letter has to be postponed by the parties accused for six months until I happened to bring it up in a hearing before a congressional committee.

I presume most of the members of the committee have already read this letter, and so I will not ask your indulgence to read it.

The CHAIRMAN. The letter from Mr. Fort had reference to the income tax. In what way is it connected with the matter under discussion?

Mr. MARSH. The letter which was written by Commissioner Fort was dated Spring Lake, N. J., July 19, 1919, and addressed to Commissioner Murdock of the Federal Trade Commission, and the charge was made that Armour & Co. were escaping paying the income taxes they should by excluding their South American business, and the direct charge was made by Commissioner Fort against Mr. Mayer and Armour & Co., which, if correct, as I stated before, would seem to me ought to call for action by the Attorney General. When he is here next week, with your permission, I will ask him whether he has done anything in the matter that directly bears on the profits of the packers, and, as I remarked last night, they are attempting through the most ingenious system of segregated budgets to work a plan here so that they can show a loss on most anything that they want to.

Mr. BORDERS. Do not the packers have to make a return under the income-tax law, under oath?

Mr. MARSH. Under oath?

Mr. BORDERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARSH. To the Commissioner of Internal Revenue?

Mr. BORDERS. Yes, sir. But

Mr. MARSH (interposing). Permit me to finish my answer. I presume they do, but you know perfectly well, because before you testified you asked to be given immunity, if I am correctly informed.

Mr. BORDERS. If you want to go into that, you can do it quickly. Mr. MARSH. I have done it.

Mr. BORDERS. All right.

Mr. MARSH. You know perfectly well that there are lots of things that clever lawyers can conceal, and you know perfectly well that we have not collected a lot of income taxes due. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue in his report says that they are going to collect a lot of back taxes from individuals and concerns who have attempted