The stockyards are taken away, under certain conditions. The refrigerator cars are not. A provision is made in the Anderson bill for the use of the packers' refrigerator cars under certain conditions. The Gronna bill has no reference as to the matter of refrigerator cars, and I believe that provision should be restored in the bill.

I have here a suggestion in regard to refrigerator cars which I would like to leave with the committee for their consideration, and I am going to read my suggestion on that matter, which as follows. [Reading:]

SEC. 16. That the term “ transportation" as used in the act entitled "An act to regulate commerce," approved February 4, 1887, as amended shall be deemed to include refrigerator cars and special equipment cars of efficient type or types approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission for the transportation of fresh meats or perishable foods and foodstuffs and all facilities and services in connection with the movement, transfer in transit, ventilation, refrigeration, icing, storage, and handling of such cars and the fresh meat or perishable food or foodstuffs transported therein. It shall be the duty of every common carrier by railroad, subject to the provisions of that act, to provide such cars in number sufficient from time to time to accommodate the reasonable need therefor on its lines and to furnish the same with due promptness upon reasonable request therefor and without unjust discrimination; and such carrier otherwise with respect to such cars shall be governed by the provisions of that act. No carrier subject to the provisions of such act shall, after the expiration of one year from the date this act takes effect, employ in commerce any refrigerator cars or special equipment cars for the transportation of fresh meat or perishable food or foodstuffs which are not owned or controlled by a carrier subject as such to the control of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

The failure by any such carrier to perform any duty or to comply with any requirement prescribed by this section shall subject such carrier to all the liabilities, prosecutions, and penalties provided in the said act of February 4, 1887, as amended, for similar violations and offenses, except that the amount of penalty for failing or neglecting to obey an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission under this section shall be $100 for each offense, instead of $5,000 as provided in section 13 of said act; and any distinct violation shall be a separate offerse, and in case of a continuing violation each day shall be considered a separate offense. The Interstate Commerce Commission is authorized to enforce the provisions of this section in the manner provided in said act for the enforcement of similar provisions therein. In carrying out the provisions of this section the Interstate Commerce Commission shall cooperate with the Secretary of Agriculture.

I call attention to the fact that the particular difference in principle between the provision I suggest in regard to refrigerator cars and the provision that is contained in the Anderson bill is that at the end of one year the common carriers shall not employ in commerce any refrigerator or special-equipment cars for the transportation of fresh meat or perishable food or foodstuffs which is not owned by or controlled by the carriers.

I may say that one year may not seem to the committee to be long enough for the taking over of refrigerator cars by the railroads, and if in the opinion of the Interstate Commerce Commission it would require a much longer period than one year, it seems to me it would be perfectly proper to leave that matter to them to extend the period.

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. May I ask another question right there?

Mr. BURKE, Yes, sir.

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Right on that point let me say that the salt factories in Michigan can not get cars to-day to supply the packing concerns with the necessary salt. And unless something can be done

to get this equipment in their hands now the packers are going to have to curtail in the next few days their slaughter of live stock. That is the situation they are confronted with at this moment. I just call your attention to that for your consideration in connection with that kind of recommendation.

Mr. BURKE. Well, I am not at all tied down to the exact time in which the refrigerator cars should be transferred to the railroads. The principle, however, should be recognized in any bill that is passed at this time, so that the stamp of approval of Congress may be placed on that principle.

In connection with the refrigerator-car matter I want to say this: That I believe as long as any large proportion of the refrigerator cars are owned by the large packers, and the railroads furnish only a comparatively small portion of them, no matter if the cars belonging to the packers are made open to the use of the public, the large packers will have the best of the distribution. I do not believe it could be otherwise. As long as the railroads have an insignificant proportion of the refrigerator cars to look after and keep going they will not set up and organize the proper machinery for giving prompt and efficient refrigerator-car service, which is one of the very fundamental things in connection with this whole matter.

The railroad bill does provide that adequate car service shall be furnished, and undoubtedly adequate car service would include cars of the refrigerator type. But to what extent the provision in the law will be carried out by the Interstate Commerce Commission is problematical. I believe myself if meat refrigerator cars had been specifically referred to in the railroad bill it would have been better and that it would have encouraged the Interstate Commerce Commission to take a little more active action in regard to it.

Mr. WELD. Don't you think that "special equipment" covers refrigerator cars sufficiently?

Mr. BURKE. Special equipment?

Mr. WELD. Yes; that is the term used in the railroad bill.

Mr. BURKE. Yes; that is the term used. I think "car service" would include special-equipment cars, and special-equipment cars, of course, would include refrigerator cars. But, as I say, I believe if refrigerator cars had been specifically mentioned as obligatory on the railroads to furnish it would have in that way been brought more definitely to the attention of the Interstate Commerce Commission. And in that case they would probably have acted with more force in

the matter.

Mr. BORDERS. Do not you know that the report of the conferees on this railroad bill states that "special equipment " includes refrigerator cars under the railroad act?

Mr. BURKE, I agree with you that it does include that. The words "special equipment" leaves no question at all for argument on that point.

Mr. BORDERS. On the question of the use of refrigerator cars, let me ask: Do you think that the cars that distribute your meat should be devoted to other purposes also, such as hauling potatoes from Michigan, and the peach crop of Georgia, and the onion crop of Texas, and fruits from California, and all those things? Do not you think that cars for the transportation of meat should be limited exclusively to the handling of meat?

Mr. BURKE. Well, I am not prepared to answer that question, Mr. Borders. I do not know enough about refrigerator cars to know whether cars that distribute meat might not to advantage, when they are not engaged in the meat business, be used in other lines of transportation.

Mr. BORDERS. Does it not occur to you that if they are drawn upon for all kinds of business that they might be diverted to some other use at the very time when they ought to be used for hauling your meat?

Mr. BURKE, Yes; I think that is possible. And I think that is a thing that should be very carefully guarded against. But I will not say that I think refrigerator cars might not to advantage, under certain conditions, be diverted to other things than meat.

Mr. BORDERS. Do you not know that when they are diverted it takes a great deal of work and involves considerable expense to put them in a condition to haul meat? That is, to clean them up and get rid of the odors?

Mr. BURKE. I can imagine, if certain things, like onions, were hauled in them, or something else that would tend to make an offensive smell or to taint the cars in any way, that it might be a very difficult matter to restore them to proper condition for use in transporting meats.

Mr. BORDERS. Exactly.

Mr. BURKE. And I think that should be guarded against.

Mr. BORDERS. Mr. Burke, do not you know that the packers' position has always been that if they can get cars from the railroads sufficient to handle their business they will be very glad, indeed, to have the railroads furnish those cars?

Mr. BURKE, Well-and themselves go out of the refrigerator-car business?

Mr. BORDERS. Oh, certainly; if they can get sufficient cars.

Mr. BURKE. Well, I think that is the end toward which we all want to work. That is the very point I was making in my recommendation that the sooner we can all work toward that end and bring that about the sooner this whole business will be placed on a basis of equal opportunity and fairness.

Mr. BORDERS. Well, now, on the question of equal opportunity. What you have in mind is that the small packer should be given opportunity to be given refrigerator cars also, isn't it?

Mr. BURKE. Yes; exactly. And I do not believe that the small packer will ever have equal opportunity to get cars until the ownership of cars is taken out of private hands.

Mr. BORDERS. Let me make this suggestion to you: Do not you think the solution of that matter is, if the railroads are to have the refrigerator cars, to require the railroads, first, to build all the refrigerator cars that the smaller packers would require, leaving the large packers alone with their refrigerator cars until that is done. Would not that be the solution, to take care of the small packer first. We have no objection.

Mr. BURKE. Well, in the recommendation I have just made I provide that after a certain period a carrier should not haul any refrigerator car that does not belong to some carrier.

Mr. BORDERS. Yo know, Mr. Burke, that these cars are operated at a loss by the packers.

Mr. BURKE. I know that they make that claim or statement, and I have no reason to doubt that it is a fact.

Mr. BORDERS. Does not the Interstate Commerce Commission say that after a very exhaustive investigation?

Mr. BURKE. I have no criticism of the packers' statement on that. Mr. VOIGT. May I ask a question right there, and we had that matter up here yesterday afternoon with Mr. Weld. The statement that the packers operate refrigerator cars at a loss I think is erroneous. When the packers say they are operating these cars at a loss they mean that it costs them more money to maintain these cars than they get back from the railroads for mileage. But in that transaction they do not take into account or make any allowance for the advantage they get out of the use of these refrigerator cars. If the packers were to credit this account of loss on refrigerator cars with the benefits that they derive economically from their operation I think the operation of them would show a great advantage, in fact a profit, wouldn't it?

Mr. BURKE. Well, I presume that all the packers mean by that, Mr. Voigt, is that the returns they get from the railroads for the use of these cars are not enough to pay interest and cost of repairs. That is all they mean by it, I presume.

Mr. VOIGT. Yes; but I think they want the public to get an entirely different impression from that statement when they say they operate them at a loss.

Mr. BURKE. Per se, that is what they mean; just as they segregate the refrigerator car from everything else. That is their statement. Of course, the fact that they use the cars and make money out of them in the long run is a matter that goes into the general profits of their business. They can not get along without them. `As a separate refrigerator car proposition I presume if they could get along without them they would do away with them.

Mr. BORDERS. Well, let me ask

Mr. VOIGT (interposing). Here is a man who handles a given commodity, and he figures out what it costs him to handle that commodity in a mechanical way, and after so doing he says: I am losing money in the handling of this commodity. But he does not state how much profit is made on the sale of that commodity. It is the wrong way of figuring the matter.

Mr. BURKE. Well, it is a matter of bookkeeping, which I suppose may be taken up.

Mr. WELD. Mr. Voigt, I do not think there is any desire to misrepresent anything in that respect. We do mean from the standpoint of the cars themselves that the income is not sufficient to cover cost of operation. But figured as a part of our whole operation they do contribute toward the profitableness of our industry, and that is the reason we want to keep them.

Mr. VOIGT. I do not think you should herald the fact that you are losing money on refrigerator cars, because you are not.

Mr. WELD. Well, it is rather a serious matter to us as it is a fact from the standpoint of the operation of the cars themselves. We used to make money on them up to a few years ago, to make a small profit.

Mr. VOIGT. But the fact remains that you are enabled to make money in your total operations, which includes the operation of these refrigerator cars. If you were not, you would not be running them.

Mr. CHAPLIN. I do not think that is quite correctly stated. We have some advantage from them, it is true, because through their use we are enabled to do business without interruption. That is the only way in which they are benficial-that we can avoid interruptions in the movement of our goods by having the responsibility ourselves to see that the cars are where they should be when they should be there

and that is all.

Mr. VOIGT. Well, I think the broad fact remains that if you people did not make money from owning and operating these cars, you would not own and operate them.

Mr. CHAPLIN. We could not get along without the cars. Just like the delivery wagon to the retail store, we must have them.

Mr. BORDERS. What about the producer? Does not the producer get the same benefit from their use that the packer gets? If meat is not moved expeditiously from the packing centers, how could we buy live stock every day in the market centers? When you come to a consideration of that part of the benefits, I want to call your attention to the fact that they are a benefit to the producer; that the meat must be moved expeditiously and efficiently or the packer can not buy live stock, and therefore these refrigerator cars are of the same benefit to the producer as to the packer.

Mr. VOIGT. I do not question that at all. I do not see why you should not have proper refrigerator cars. The point that occurs to me is that you should not have an advantage over any other packer in the use of these cars.

Mr. BORDERS. We do not have.

Mr. VOIGT. If you did not have, you would not own them.

Mr. WELD. Oh, well, if we did not have refrigerator cars, we could not conduct the packing business at all and could not buy cattle or hogs.

Mr. VOIGT. I say, you are entitled to refrigerator cars, but the point I am making is that you should not be put in a position where you have an advantage over somebody else in the use of this vehicle of transportation.

Mr. BORDERS. We went into that as a matter of necessity, in the first place, because the railroads would not build them and would not furnish them.

Mr. VOIGT. I will say in answer to that statement that possibly that is true. And if it should be true to-day I think the railroads should be compelled to furnish them.

Mr. BORDERS. I agree with you on that.

Mr. WILSON. But what should the packers do until the railroads do furnish them?

Mr. VOIGT. I think the proper solution of this refrigerator-car matter is for the Congress to lay down the general principle that it is against public policy for any private enterprise to own the means of transportation, such as refrigerator cars.

Mr. WILSON. But that does not fill the present need.

Mr. VOIGT. Then leave the working out of the practical details to the Interstate Commerce Commission after the commission knows what the Congress views the matter to be; to leave some flexible means whereby this car situation can be adjusted in the hands of the Interstate Commerce Commission during the next few years.