The principal labels for insecticides, other than lead arsenate and Paris green, and for fungicides that contain arsenic or compounds of arsenic, must show the percentage of arsenic present. Any false or exaggerated claim as to the efficacy of an insecticide or fungicide constitutes a violation of the law. The act demands further that all insecticides and fungicides must be up to the standards under which they are sold and that no insecticide or fungicide shall contain any substance or substances that will injure the plant on which it may be used.

Mr. SANDLIN. You might give us a general statement covering your work under this item.

Doctor DUNBAR. The purpose of the insecticide act is of course, to control the purity and honest labeling of insecticides.

The insecticide act is intended to guard against two particular evils. One of them is the use by the farmer of insecticides so poorly compounded that they may result not only in failure to cure the evil, but also in damage to the crop to which the product is applied. The other is labelling with dishonest claims with respect to the effectiveness of the insecticide.

Under this appropriation we do such things as this:

Annually we inspect, sample, and analyze chemically the output of every manufacturer who produces calcium arsenate for the cotton crop. If that calcium arsenate were not up to specifications, if it lacked the proper composition, it would not only be likely to ruin the cotton plant, but it also would fail to protect the cotton crop against insects. We had last week a case of just that type, in which a plea of guilty was entered by a firm in Memphis, which had put out a product labeled as calcium arsenate which actually consisted of a mixture of lead arsenate and lime. The product would not have been effective against the boll weevil, and it would have damaged the cotton plant, no doubt.

Those goods were removed from the market by seizure and the manufacturer was prosecuted, and I think that trouble is corrected. That is an illustration of the type of work we do.

Mr. SANDLIN. How often are these inspections made?

Doctor DUNBAR. We aim to take samples of every calcium arsenate manufacturer's output at least once every year, and usually we take two or three samples of each output. In that way we get a line on the quality of the product that the manufacturer is putting out each year. Of course, we cover a great many other types of insecticides. I merely cited calcium arsenate as an example..

Mr. SANDLIN. After this inspection is made, what would prevent the manufacturer from continuing to put the product on the market? Doctor DUNBAR. The manufacturer never knows when we are going to take his samples; and, of course, we do not go to his plant for our samples. We take them after he has shipped them in interstate commerce. He is aware that our inspectors will take samples of his product at irregular and indefinite periods, so that he is almost certain to run afoul of the law unless he puts out a legal product. He never knows when we are going to take our samples.

I ought to say, probably, that in the case of the insecticide act, as in the case of the food and drugs act, we could profitably make more frequent inspections. Naturally, the amount of our inspection work, both under the food and drugs act and under all our other statutes, is limited by the amount of the funds available.

Mr. HART. There is quite a little inspection done in various States also?

Doctor DUNBAR. There is; yes, sir-not so much on insecticides, but there is on foods. But that is sufficient only to take care of the intrastate transactions, and many States have practically no food and drug inspection. Some of them have food inspection but not drug inspection. The drug work in the States is in most cases very small. Mr. HART. As to those that do have inspection, you cooperate with them more or less?

Doctor DUNBAR. We do. We have an office of cooperation to develop that kind of assistance, and we interchange information. Mr. HART. That is what I thought.

ENFORCEMENT OF MILK IMPORTATION ACT

Mr. SANDLIN. The next item is:

For enabling the Secretary of Agriculture to carry into effect the provisions of an act approved February 15, 1927 (U. S. C., Supp. V, title 21, secs. 141-149), entitled "An act to regulate the importation of milk and cream into the United States for the purpose of promoting the dairy industry of the United States and protecting the public health," $8,360.

Doctor DUNBAR. The following justification is presented for this appropriation:

(a) Reduction of $10,000 for the reason that the volume of milk and cream imported into the United States has fallen off and this has made it possible to inspect milk and cream coming in with a smaller staff.

(b) Reduction of $1,240 on account of continuation of legislative furlough.

WORK UNDER THIS APPROPRIATION

To provide for expenses in enforcing the milk importation act approved Feb ruary 15, 1927 (U. S. C., Supp. IV, title 21, secs. 141-149). The milk importation act provides for inspection both at the source and at the ports of entry. The work of enforcing this act, therefore, involves the supervision of the sanitary inspection of Canadian shipping plants and dairies from which milk is shipped to the United States and supervision of the physical examination and in most instances tuberculin test once a year of cattle from herds producing milk shipped to the United States, this work being carried out in collaboration with Canadian officials as authorized by the act; it also involves the bacteriological examination and temperature tests of sufficient representative samples of all imported milk and cream to insure compliance with the act at ports of entry. Milk may be brought into the United States at any port along the Canadian border, but the bulk of the milk and cream comes in through ports of entry in New York and the New England States.

Mr. SANDLIN. This is an item in which you have made a reduction of $10,000?

Doctor DUNBAR. Yes. As I explained at the outset, we have felt this item for the enforcement of the milk importation act can be reduced by $10,000, by reason of the fact that through the operation of the tariff there has been a decrease in importations of milk and cream and it will be possible to handle the work at a considerably lower cost than originally. When this act was first passed, $50,000 was appropriated. You will notice we have reduced the estimate to $18,360 for the ensuing fiscal year.

ENFORCEMENT OF THE CAUSTIC POISON ACT

Mr. SANDLIN. Your next item is:

For enabling the Secretary of Agriculture to carry into effect the provisions of an act approved March 4, 1927 (U. S. C., Supp. 5, title 15, secs. 401-411), entitled "An act to safeguard the distribution and sale of certain dangerous caustic or corrosive acids, alkalies, and other substances in interstate and foreign commerce. "$23,719.

Doctor DUNBAR. The following statement is offered for the record: The decrease of $1,641 is explained as follows:

(a) Apparent increase of $30 by transfer from "Salaries, office of the Secretary," which has been correspondingly reduced, as pro rata of supply handling charges for 1934.

WORK UNDER THIS APPROPRIATION

To provide for the expenses in connection with enforcing the caustic poison act, approved March 4, 1927 (U. S. C., Supp. IV, title 15, secs. 401-411). The caustic poison act imposes upon the department the obligation of seeing that the large number of preparations containing caustic or corrosive substances and sold in interstate or foreign commerce for household use are correctly labeled with the common name of the substance, with the word "Poison," with directions for treatment in case of accidental personal injury, and with the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, seller, or distributor. To enforce this act, samples must be collected from the products determined by chemical analysis, and such tests made as will establish whether any or all of the ingredients are caustic or corrosive, and whether the directions given in case of injury are correct and adequate.

Mr. SANDLIN. There was appropriated for the enforcement of the caustic poison act in 1932, $26,790; in 1933, $25,360; and the estimate for 1934 is $23,719-a reduction of $1,671 on account of the continuation of the legislative furlough and $30 increase by reason of a transfer from "Salaries, Office of the Secretary."

Doctor DUNBAR. That is correct.

Mr. SANDLIN. You might make a short statement on that.

Doctor DUNBAR. The caustic poison act requires us to make certain that certain poisonous substances specified in that act shall bear the word "Poison," the antidote, and other information, such as the name of the manufacturer and the common name of the article. This statute is being enforced in a rather routine way, because we find that ordinarily a manufacturer promptly brings his label into compliance with it, when it is brought to his attention. We can hardly see how it would be possible to patrol the whole country and all concerns who are making products subject to this statute with any less amount than we have estimated here.

PURCHASE OF PASSENGER-CARRYING VEHICLES

Mr. SANDLIN. With reference to the limitation on the purchase of passenger-carrying vehicles, I notice the appropriation asked for this year is the same as for last-$9,200.

Doctor DUNBAR. Yes.

Mr. SANDLIN. Does that provide for the purchase of any new automobiles?

Doctor DUNBAR. I am going to ask Mr. Linton to make a statement on that.

Mr. LINTON. That, as you stated, is the same amount as we had last year. This provides for turning in, altogether, 19 cars and get

ting 4 additional cars, a total of 23. It adds 4 cars to the number we now have. Those 4 cars are intended to be used in the central district, 1 at Chicago, 1 at Cincinnati, 1 at St. Louis, and 1 at Kansas City. We find that it is absolutely necessary to have cars to cover the canneries and small factories located outside of the cities and more and more they are being located outside of the cities, because of the development of the truck.

There are three ways we can get cars: One is to rent commercial cars, the cost of which runs anywhere from 12 to 20 cents a mile, depending on the locality; second, the use of personally owned cars, which cost us, up to this year, an average of 6 cents a mile, but which now cost about 5 cents a mile, and then by buying the lighter Ford or Chevrolet coupé type of cars, which we have been operating for the last two years and we find we can now operate at a cost of about 3.3 cents a mile, allowing for depreciation and all other costs.

In our central district, where we propose to put these four additional cars, last year we used personally owned cars to the extent of about 93,000 miles, at a cost of about $5,500. Now we can very greatly reduce that by getting these 4 additional cars; instead of using personally owned cars at an average of 5 cents a mile, we will use these Government-owned cars, which will cost us not more than 3.3 cents, or 3.5 cents at the most, to operate. It is a decided economy.

Mr. SANDLIN. What is the average price of the cars used by your corps?

Mr. LINTON. We only buy the Ford, or Chevrolet, or some other low-priced car that may compete. They cost us, I think, about $475 apiece in competition.

Mr. BUCHANAN. You have your costs of operating one of those cars pretty low, have you not?

Mr. LINTON. We have, indeed. I checked that over and it is very low. Of course, you understand that the Government pays no State tax on gasoline. We figure $150 annual depreciation on those cars. We have no license fees or insurance expense. We buy tires and other supplies at a low cost on competitive bids.

Mr. BUCHANAN. I think I will have to bring your figures in contrast with the figures of some of the other bureaus. Three and a half cents. is the cheapest cost we have had.

Mr. LINTON. They may operate different types of cars, or may be operating them under different conditions, where the roads are different as to surfaces or the grades are steeper.

Mr. BUCHANAN. As to these new cars, will you have enough mileage a year to justify their purchase?

Mr. LINTON. Yes, we will. As I say, we had in the central district 93,000 miles

Mr. BUCHANAN. I understand, but that was all over the district; that was not where the cars will be located.

Mr. LINTON. No. We proposed to use one of those in Chicago. Mr. BUCHANAN. What do you pay out there for rental?

Mr. LINTON. In Chicago, we used personally owned cars to the extent of 43,355 miles, at a cost of $2,514.72.

Mr. BUCHANAN. What is your next place you are going to put one of these cars, and give us the figures on that?

Mr. LINTON. We are going to put one at Cincinnati. Our mileage on personally owned cars there was 22,563 miles, at a cost of $1,263.37.

Mr. BUCHANAN. What is the next place and the cost?

Mr. LINTON. The next place is the Kansas City station. There we have a smaller mileage than in the other stations. The personally owned cars were used for 3,199 miles, at a total cost of $223.93. One reason for the small mileage there

Mr. BUCHANAN. Did you have any other rentals or hired cars there; is that all you paid out for car service there?

Mr. LINTON. I have not here the data on rented commercial cars, where a man goes out on the train and hires a car for a local trip. Mr. BUCHANAN. If you have that at the office, you had better supplement your testimony on that when you go over it.

Mr. LINTON. I will put that in.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Put in the figures of what you actually paid out for car service, and which this additional car will avoid. Mr. LINTON. I happen to know the situation there. One reason for the low mileage there is that one of our inspectors does not have a personally owned car. They would have used personally owned cars to a greater extent than this mileage shows, if the inspector had had one he could have used; so that they have had to cover transportation by other means, railroad, bus, and so forth, supplementing that with personal cars. I will put that in.

The total cost for transportation expense at Kansas City for the year was $1,799.65. This includes the expense for personally owned cars, railroad fares, bus fares, rent of commercial cars and the like. The cost of commercial automobile transportation alone was $397.25. In addition to that a portion of the railroad travel could be performed in the proposed Government owned car with a substantial saving in both time and expense. The use of railroad transportation for short trips is not usually efficient because of the time lost in waiting for trains, and such transportation must be supplemented with the use of taxicabs to reach outlying factories. The transportation expense at Kansas City can be reduced by the use there of an additional Government-owned car.

Mr. JUMP. Also street-car fares?

Mr. LINTON. Street-car fares, local taxi fares, and all that. At St. Louis, our total is 11,046 miles, at a cost of $762.03.

We feel very confident, Mr. Buchanan, we can save money on these 4 Government-owned cars if their purchase is authorized.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1932.

INTERCHANGE OF APPROPRIATIONS

STATEMENT OF W. A. JUMP, BUDGET OFFICER

Mr. JUMP. The item on page 425 is a continuation of the usual provision for the interchange of appropriations within the department, and it includes, pursuant to the requirement of the law, a report on the transfers that were made during the fiscal year 1932.

Mr. BUCHANAN. That is not within the department, is it, but within each bureau?

Mr. JUMP. That is within each bureau of the department; you are correct within each bureau of the department.