Mr. MCLAUGHLIN of Nebraska. I was just stating the fact. Mr. BORDERS. I agree with you. Mr. MCLAUGHLIN of Nebraska. It is a fact, I think, that a lot of people can not afford to buy meat. Mr. BORDERS. I agree with you. Mr. McLAUGHLIN of Nebraska. And could not afford to buy it last year. Mr. BORDERS. If these producers are to get still more money for the live animal, where is the price of meat going, and what will happen? The consumption will go still further down and production will fall off. Mr. MCLAUGHLIN of Nebraska. The reason that my family is not eating more meat is that the price is simply too high and we look for some substitutes that we can get along with at a more economical price. Dr. WILSON. This editorial which I have appeared in one of the Cleveland papers Mr. ANDERSON (interposing). The figures you read were from the Food Administration, and I want to call your attention to the fact that the figures of the Food Administration on the consumption of pork include pork products and that includes lard. The Food Asministration's figures on beef include all the beef products, all of the utilized offal and everything of that sort. Dr. WILSON. A part of the edible carcass. Mr. ANDERSON. That is not true of the figures of the Department of Agriculture. Dr. WILSON. What do they show? Mr. ANDERSON. They include beef as such. Dr. WILSON. Nothing but the beef? Mr. ANDERSON. As I understand it. Dr. WILSON. Here is the editorial I referred to. It goes on and says that carries out the contention of the Congressman here: The other is from the Department of Agriculture, announcing that the per capita beef consumption— I think that should be "meat"; I think that is a mistakeof the United States fell off 8 pounds in 1919. Mr. ANDERSON. As compared with what? Dr. WILSON. It just says the per capita beef consumption of the United States fell off 8 pounds in 1919. I suppose compared with the previous year. Mr. ANDERSON. That is beef? Dr. WILSON. I think that is a mistake. Mr. ANDERSON. That is beef. Dr. WILSON. That makes nearly a billion pounds of beef. Mr. VOIGT. Do you not think that this fact had something to do with it? In 1918 we had mobilized a very large Army and this Army required more food? That is, I mean that the price was more affected by that in 1918? Dr. WILSON. Naturally, and there was a great deal of waste. Mr. VOIGT. And they used more than they would in 1919 when at home? Dr. WILSON. I think there is something to that. Mr. VOIGT. I think if you would investigate you would find that the average soldier consumes a great deal more meat than the average civilian. Dr. WILSON. That makes a wonderful reduction since 1911, 1912, and 1913 before the soldiers were mobilized. Mr. VOIGT. How does the 1919 consumption compare with 1915 and 1916 ? Dr. WILSON. Take 1919, I have only these figures, the figure for 1919 is not yet available, because it had not been arrived at then. This simply says that the per capita beef consumption of the United States fell off 8 pounds in 1919. It says "beef," but I think that must be a mistake, because I do not believe there could be that decrease in the consumption of beef. It says: A decrease of 8 pounds per capita in the national meat bill is an indication that the price was too high. It was not because of scarcity, for meatless-day restrictions had vanished long before the calendar year of 1919 commenced. People were permitted to go as far as they liked in the use of flesh foods, limited only by their ability to pay. The restrictions due to high prices were productive of a saving almost as great as the meatless-day regulation. What is the answer? Retail prices of meat must come within the reach of the consumer's purse or the abstention will continue. High wages paid in ordinary occu-pations bring no relief. Slowly it is becoming clear to all that the era of inflation has lasted too long. Take the reports as they are and the production of beef in 1914 was only 7.25 in excess of consumption. That is, per capita. In other words, if there were a hundred million we had 700,000,000 pounds to find an outlet for. In other words, out of every 25 animals slaughtered we would only have to find export for 1 and consume the other 24, or out of every 100 we would have to find export for 4. In 1918 the production was 30.50 in excess of our consumption. Mr. YOUNG. In what year? Dr. WILSON. 1918; 30.50 pounds per capita in excess of the consumption. That would mean about 3,000,000,000 pounds of meat in excess of what we consumed. Out of every 7 animals slaughtered we consumed 6 head and had to find export for 1 head. Now, reduce this meat and call it beef. Not adding 8 pounds which has fallen off this year, it would make another billion pounds practically. With 110,000,000, which I hope it will show this year, it would make 990,000,000 pounds, practically a billion pounds to add to this. If you take the 30.50 pounds in excess of consumption last year or 1918, if you took all that meat and converted it into beef and slaughtered the animals you would have to slaughter over 6,000,000 head, cleaning 500 pounds of beef that we would have in the interest of the cattle men of the country to either eat ourselves or else export it. At present prices we are not going to eat it all, I do not believe. Mr. ANDERSON. Do you mean that we have to export 6,000,000 head? Dr. WILSON. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDERSON. That is more than one-third of the total slaughter? Dr. WILSON. Yes, sir; practically. I said convert all the meat. Mr. ANDERSON. That is a little unfair? Dr. WILSON. I should like to know why? Mr. ANDERSON. Because a lot of the meat is hogs? Mr. ANDERSON. The demand for hogs for export has increased while the demand for hogs for consumption has decreased. Dr. WILSON. What I wanted to show was to put it in with something comparable. Mr. ANDERSON. That is just what you have not done. Dr. WILSON. I beg your pardon. Mr. ANDERSON. You can not compare beef with hogs, cattle, sheep, and everything else. Dr. WILSON. I can compare meat, and I am comparing meat. Mr. ANDERSON. You can not compare the different kinds of meat. Dr. WILSON. No. Mr. ANDERSON. You reduce those to cattle? Dr. WILSON. I can take the same figures and show you that it would probably take eighteen to twenty-five million hogs to supply it. It is easy enough to get the figures. Pork is a little more than beef, and it would be at least over 2,000,000 head of cattle alone. Mr. ANDERSON. Reduced to pounds, how much do you figure the excess of meat production in the country over consumption is? Dr. WILSON. With this 8 pounds, if that means this year, 38.5 pounds per capita. Mr. ANDERSON. That must go somewhere. If it is not consumed it must go out of the country? Dr. WILSON. You would have to find an outlet or it could not be bought and paid for. Mr. ANDERSON. How much in pounds would that be? Dr. WILSON. In pounds? Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Dr. WILSON. With the population at 100,000,000, it is over thatto take these figures it would be nearly 4,000,000,000 pounds. Mr. ANDERSON. The highest export in the history of the country was less than 3,000,000,000 pounds? Dr. WILSON. We have to get rid of it, eat it. These men who are buying it can not buy continuously, unless they get an outlet for it. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Do you figure on practically about 4,000,000,000 pounds of excess? Dr. WILSON. Of meat? Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes, sir. Dr. WILSON. Yes, sir. Mr. HUTCHINSON. You are not figuring on any increase of production this year? Dr. WILSON. I doubt whether there will be much increase in the production. There was a very heavy loss in the West, very heavy, two or three years ago, in the Southwest. That has been practically recovered from, but the loss itself will not be so excessive or such a large percentage as compared to the whole country. If there is nothing further on that, I should like to go ahead with this Government report from Great Britain. This is "Interdepartmental committee on meat supplies. Report of committee appointed by the board of trade to consider the means of securing sufficient meat supplies for the United Kingdom. Presented to Parliament by command of His Majesty. London: Printed and published by His Majesty's stationery office." It does not say what month, but 1919; at least it does not say any month. It is for sale for three pence net. It is signed by W. C. Bridgeman, M. P. (chairman), A. Andrews Uthwatt, F. T. Boys, E. J. Harding, R. Henry Rew-they all have part of the alphabet after their namesand Lieut. Col. Sir Thomas B. Robinson, K. C. M. G., K. B. E. I will only read a few extracts from this for your information. The Federal Trade Commission on the meat-packing industry (1918) has denounced them as a combination working through a live-stock pool and has accused them of sundry malpractices, resulting in their obtaining a command over most of the important towns in the United States. The meat companies, on the other hand, assert that they abandoned all pools and dominations a long time ago. Mr. ANDERSON. That is true. Dr. WILSON. Yes, sir; all right. It is reported that the United States Government is now taking proceedings against the meat companies under the laws against combinations and "unfair" competition in domestic trade. The Webb Act of 1918, however, exempts from the provisions of these laws associations "entered into for the sole purpose of engaging in export trade and actually engaged solely in such export trade.” The Webb law is still in force? Mr. ANDERSON. It is. Dr. WILSON. It gives a table here showing that the British companies in 1909 in Argentina killed 37 per cent of the meat, the Argentine companies 27 per cent, and the American companies 35 per cent. In 1914, five years after, to July, 1916, the British companies killed 26 per cent, a falling off of 11 per cent, the Argentine companies killed 14 per cent, a falling off of 13 per cent, and the American companies killed 59 per cent, an increase of 24 per cent over 1909. Then under "The future of reproduction," it says: The only way of ensuring that the price of meat shall be reasonable is either to limit the demand or to take care that the supplies are abundant and not controlled by rings or combinations. Supplies in turn will not be abundant unless prices are such as will afford a reasonable remuneration to the producer. Bearing in mind that one important desideratum is that British markets are to be kept free from foreign domination- They do not want any foreigners— and that home producers are more easily dealt with than foreign producers, it is evident that we should look for increased and assured supplies in the first place to the United Kingdom, in the second to the Oversea Dominions, in the third to British companies operating in foreign countries, and only in the last place to foreign producers. It goes on and gives the percentage of cattle and sheep to the population of Great Britain; in 1871, 295 cattle to the thousand; in 1911, 262 to the thousand; and sheep, 993, nearly a sheep apiece, and in 1911, it was 672, or about six-tenths per cent. Two proposals for safeguarding the position of the British companies in the Plate have been put before us. The first was that the Imperial Government should guarantee to all purely British companies a fair return on their capital. The second plan was put forward by the incorporated society of importers as part of their premium scheme. They suggested that a premium of an eighth of a penny per pound should be paid to British meat companies operating in foreign countries, or half the rate to be paid to British firms operating in the Dominions. * * It has been proposed to us that legislation should be passed canceling existing contracts between the meat and the shipping companies and that the shipping companies should then be directed to let purely British meat companies a definite proportion of the insulated space. *Though the United States Government may be hostile to the large meat packers in the United States, it must be remembered that under the Webb Act (1918) combinations solely for the purpose of export from the 166762-20-PT 21-2 United States are legal, and a fortiori combinations for export from a neutral country. Again, British shipping has hitherto had a monopoly of the meat trade, but 15 American insulated steamers have been equipped during the war, and at least three more are being built. Great Britain, as I understand, has had an absolute monopoly of shipping arrangements on account of having insulated steamers, but it says that we have built 15, and at least three more are being built. All these steamers will be looking for trade. Such drastic action as that proposed above might lead the American meat companies, in self-defense, to adopt the policy of providing their own ships. It was represented to us as of urgent importance that purely British meat companies should also have a share in the development of this great cattle country. This is talking of Brazil. During the war a proposal was under consideration to advance from the British Government one-third of the capital necessary, but although this was favorably regarded in time of war, we doubt whether it is now possible to advance money for this particular purpose to an individual firm. We would point out, however, that the British Trade Corporation was incorporated by royal charter for the purpose of supporting sound commercial schemes promoted by British enterprise. A precedent for licensing is to be found in a recent act of the New Zealand Legislature requiring all meat exporters to be licensed and empowering the government to refuse a license on grounds of public policy, and we are informed that under that act an export license has been refused to Armour & Co. Under that they can not export any beef to New Zealand. Two bills are at present before the United States Senate, known as the Kenyon bill and the Kendrick bill, which provide, among other matters, for the licensing of persons engaged in the businesses of slaughtering live stock, preparing or marketing live-stock products, and marketing dairy products, poultry, and poultry products. They differ in some details, but agree in declaring licenses forfeitable on proof of unfair trading or combination to control prices, etc. Here are some of the recommendations: We also recommend that Government contracts for meat should be confined to British producers in the United Kingdom and in the Dominions— which they have a perfect right to do. We recommend that the Government should encourage friendly cooperation between British shipowners and British meat companies for the establishment of service in which British interests would be concerned. Such cooperation would be promoted by means of the consultative committees suggested in paragraphs (61) and (63(c)). We also recommend that the British Government should acquire an interest in one or more freezing works for the purpose of ensuring, by first-hand acquaintance with the facts, that the position of British firms engaged in exportation of meat from these countries is not unduly prejudiced. The cooperation of His Majesty's Government during the war in the Las Palmas works has proved to be of great value and affords an example which might be followed with such modifications as circumstances require. If this proposal is adopted the practicability of opening such works to all British subjects deserves favorable consideration. We regard this proposal as in the nature of an insurance, necessary so long as the United Kingdom is compelled to draw a portion of its meat supplies from sources outside the Empire. An applicant for a license should be required to furnish such information relating to the ownership of his business and other matters as may be prescribed. Subject to the prescribed information being duly furnished, the license should be issued to the applicant as of course, except where it appears that a case for revocation of the licens would immediately arise on its issue. In that case they would not grant any. British meat companies in South America. It is clear from the facts stated in paragraph 17 that the British companies operating in South America are unable to hold their ground against the American companies; |