1936 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENATE 6323' - By Mr. -RANDOLPH: A bill (H. R. 12495) to.amend an act 10790. Also, resolution of the national executive board of ent:tled "An act to provide for voca-tional rehabilitation of American Newspaper Guild, New York City, -urging Congress disabled residents of the District of Columbia, and for other to continue the Federal arts projects on a national basis purposes"
PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOL~ONS On request of Mr. RoBINSON, and by unanimous consent; Under clause -1 of rule XXII, privitt e bilis and resolutions the reading of the.Journal of the proceedings of the calendar were introduced and-severally referred as follows: < ' - day -Tuesday, April 28, 1936,' was dispensed with, and ~ the By Mr. BOYLAN: .A bill CALL OF THE ROl.L agreed to Apr. 24, 1936), a report relative to the range prob- Mr. LEWIS. Mr. President, there seems to be the absence lem of the western United States. of a quorum, and I suggest that the roll be called. Mr. NORRIS. I move that the report be referred to the The VICE PRESIDENT. The elerk will call the roll. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and that it be The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following printed, with illustrations. Senators answered to their names: The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion Adams Clark Keyes Radcli1fe of the Senator from Nebrask81. Ashurst Connally King Reynolds The motion was agreed to. Austin Coolidge La Follette Robinson Bachman Copeland Lewis Russell PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS Bailey Couzens Logan Schwellenbach Barbo'tll' Davis Lonergan Sheppard The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following Barkley Dieterich Long Shipstead concurrent resolution of the Legislature of Puerto Rico, which Benson Donahey McAdoo Smith Bilbo Duffy McKellar Steiwer was referred to the Committee on Territories and Insular Black Fletcher McNary Thomas, Okla. Affairs: Bone Frazier Maloney Thomas, Utah Borah George Metcalf Townsend Concurrent ·resolution to request of _the Congress and of His Excel Brown Gerry Minton Tydings lency the President of the United States, the Honorable Franklln. Bulkley Gibson Moore Vandenberg D. Roosevelt, that the organic act of Puerto Rico be amended so Bulow Glass Murphy Van Nuys that the bonds issued in the name of the people of Puerto Rico Burke Guffey Murray Wagner for self-liquidating projects. such as the Guayam.a. and Isabela. Byrd Hale Neely Walsh irrigation systems, hydroelectric systems, and other similar proJ Byrnes Harrison Norris Wheeler ects, shall not be included in computing the borrowing capacity Capper Hastings Nye White of the insular government, and for other purposes Caraway Hatch O'Mahoney Carey Hayden Overton Whereas under the provisions of the organic act in force relative Chavez Johnson- Pittman to bonds issued in the-name of the people of Puerto Rico for self-· liquidating projec.ts, such as the Guayama. and Isabela irrigation Mr. LEWIS. I announce for the RECORD, so that the an systems, hydroelectric systems, and other simllar projects, the bor nouncement may remain for the day, the absence of the rowing capacity of the insular government has been greatly re [Mr. BANKHEAD], duced; and Senator from Alabama the Senator from Whereas by virtue of such reduction in the said borrowing capac Colorado [Mr. CosTIGAN], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Mc ity of the insular government, it is not possible_ to issue the CARRANJ, the Senator from Florida [Mr. Tlw.naLL], caused revenue bonds authorized by the act deferring the payment of by illness. taxes on real property for a period of 10 years, the proceeds of wh1ch, if said issue were possible, would be applied to the restora I further announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. tion of the amortization funds, as well as to the relief of the GoRE], the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. HoLT], the municipalities of PUerto Rico; and Senator from Kansas [Mr. M<;:GILLJ, the Senator from Idaho Whereas an increase in the borrowing capacity of the insular [Mr. PoPE], and the Senator from Missouri [Mr. TRUMAN] government would make possible the aforesaid issue of bonds, as well as that of any other bonds which may be authorized in the are unavoidably detained from the Senate. future by the Legislature of Puerto Rico for the purpose of taking Mr. AUSTIN. I announce that the Senator from Iowa care of undeferrable public services and to give financial aid to [Mr. Drc:KmsoNJ is necessarily absent. the municipalities which are in a. precarious financial condition on account of the damages inflicted on agriculture and industry The VICE PRESIDENT. Eighty-five Senators have an and on property in general by the hurricanes that have repeatedly swered to their names. A quorum is present. swept our island: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico (the DISTRICT COlJRT, 1\rUDDI.E DISTRICT OF PENNSYI.VANIA-POSTPONE Senate of Puerto Rico concurring)- l't:IENT OF SPECIAl. ORDER SECTION 1. To request, as it is hereby requested, ms ~cellency Mr. ASHURST. Mr. President, there appears on the cal the President of the United States, the Honorable Franklin D. endar a unanimous-consent order under which the Senate Roosevelt, and the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States to enact legislation amending the organic act ot 1s to proceed today with the consideration of House bil111098, Puerto Rico to the effect that the bonds issued in the name of the known as the judges bill I ask-unanimous consent that the people of Puerto R1co for self-liquidating projects, such as the special order be postponed until Thursday, May 7. Guayama and Isa.bela. irrigation systems, hydroelectric sYstems, and other similar projects, shall not be included in computing the The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection? borrowing capacity of the insular government. so that the latter Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, I probably will not object, may issue the revenue bonds authorized by the act of the legisla but one postponement has already been had with respect to ture of Puerto Rico deferring the payment of taxes on real property this matter. Can the Senator give any assuranee that the for a. period of 10 years, the proceeds whereof shall be applied to restore the amortization funds and to the relief of the municlpa.U Senate will go forward with the bill on May 7? ties, as well as any other bond issue which may be ~uthorlzed by Mr. ASHURST. The observations of my able friend from the Leglslature of Puerto Rico in the future. Oregon are quite correct. This is not only the first post SEC. 2. That a. certified copy of this concurrent resolution be ponement but the fourth of the consideration of this bill. sent to ms Excellency the President of the United States, the Hon orable Franklin D. Roosevelt; to the President of the Senate and to I should say to the Senate, however, that-there has been the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States; able and determined opposition to the bill, and I do not feel to the chairman of the Committee on Territories and Island Pos.o in the present circumstances that we ought to take the sessions of the Senate of the United States; to the chairman of the Committee on Insular Mairs of the House of Representatives ot time this day to consider the bill I have conferred with the United States; to the Secretary of the Interior-, the 'Honorable the Senators who are opposed to the measure and they have Harold L. Ickes; and to the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico no objection to_having it go over until the day named; that tn Washington, the Honorable SANTIAGO IGLESIAS. is, Thursday, May '1. The VICE PRESIDENT also laid before the Senate reso Mr. McNARY. At which time the Senator expects action lutions adopted by the Thirty-first Annual Convention of on the_bill? _ _ _ _ the National Rivers and Harbors Gongress in Washington, . Mr. ASHURST. At that time I shall ask for final action D. C., on April 27, 1936, favoring the enactm~nt of certain on the measure. I think I would become ridiculous if I legislation with reference to fiood control, which was re should ask for another postponement at that time. So I ferred to the Committee on Commerce. assure my able friend from Oregon that this is the last post He also laid before the Senate resolutions adopted_by the ponement. Council of the City of Toledo, Ohio, and the Council of the The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the request City of Knoxville, Tenn., favoring the enactment of the of the Senator from Arizona? The Chair hears none, and so-called Wagner-Ellenbogen low-cost housing bill, which the special order is postponed until May 7. were· referred·to the Committee on Education and Labor. THE WESTERN RANGE (S, DOC, NO. 199) He also laid before the Senate a telegram from Ramon The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a letter Aboy Benitez, president, Puerto Rico Sugar Producers Asso from the Secretary of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant ciation, of San J~ P. R., requesting that no action be to Senate Resolution No. 289 (submitted by Mr. NORRIS# and taken on any proposal regarding final status of Puerto Rico 1936 _CONGRESSIONXL RECORD.-SENAT.E 6325 at the present session of Congress, which was referred to By Mr. McNARY: the Committee on Territories and Insular AffairS. A bill Mr. NORRIS . . My attention was distracted, and I did not _Let me digress long enough to suggest that there is no form hear some of the introductory remarks the Senator made. of taxation so cruel as the lowering of wages-I mean real I remember he stated there was testimony on several differ wages-or the raising of the cost of living by statute. ent bills. I am wondering if the testimony to which the Continuing reading: Senator now is about to refer applies to the bill now pending. It should be obvious that the buying public, especially the house Mr. AUSTIN. It does. _wife, has written the answer to the problem. By trading with the . chain stores they receive value for their precious dollars. It is alue Mr. BORAH. Mr. President-- and service which lead them to trade with the chain stores. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Vermont After all, are not the housewives the ones who can best decide yield to the Senator from Idaho? where they want to spend their money? Have they not a perfect Mr. AUSTIN. I yield. right to make such a _choice for themselves? · Mr. BORAH. The hearings to which_the . Senator. is now Again, Mrs. Morrison testified: making reference were hearings on the Borah-Van Nuys bill. Nowhere in the records have I been able -to find where-the groups Mr. AUSTIN. They were; but the hearings compre who are behind these bllls have made a study or offered anything hended testimony upon all the bills of like character. The to substitute for that which, the consumer-housewife is now getting. Is not the housewife-and the whole consuming public--entitled to several bills were referred to by name as well as by subject consideration in this · matter? Which· is more important, the matter in the testimony, as will be seen. housewife, who feeds the famUies of America, or the middlemen, Among other things, Mrs. Morrison stated: whose_only interest j,s to make a profit o1,1t of foodstuffs, which only increases the cost of living to the housewife and the families of The food budget has been and always will be our chief concern America?- I believe-the answer· is obvious. · in relation to the wage earner and those. unfortunates, .the relief and pension clients-how the smallest amount of cash can be Again, she testified: spread over the family's requirements and needs. We are not concerned whether ~he independent merchants or the chain stores The Robinson and Patman and Utterback bills would increase get the business, just so the housewife gets the most in quantity costs of goods to the consumers and would destroy much of the and the best in quality for her dollar. Therefore, we are opposed progress which has been made toward getting ·necessities of life to to any legislation that would increase the cost of foodstufi's. the public not only at lower prices but improved in quality and While I have no legal training, I believe it is easy to see the with sanitary and hygienic methods of handling foodstuffs. If difference between the Borah-Van Nuys and Copeland bills and such bills are enacted into law, the public criticism and resentment the Robinson-Patman and Utterback bills. would naturally be widespread. I hope you gentlemen will consider these facts and hesitate before you disregard the wishes and in Mr. President, I digress to point out that this Witness was terests of the_housewife on these matters. testifying with reference to the pending measure, as well as Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? the other bills. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LEWIS in the chair). From a study of the former group of bills, my understanding Does the Senator from Vermont yield to the Senator from is that they would only tighten up the antitrust laws to_- prevent Michigan? monopolies and prevent any type of business from having a com petitive advantage over other types. Mr. AUSTIN. I yield. . - . . Mr. VANDENBERG. The Senator has given careful and That is, she was referring to the Borah-Van Nuys and intlmite scrutiny to this problem for -weeks. I should be Copeland bills. very i:nuch -interested"m his own opinion resj>ecting the effect I do not know whether such legislation is necessary or not, of the bill upon the cost of living, as commented upon in the but I suppose the Senators who introduced these bills would not have done so unless they did believe lt was necessary. testimony he has just -read. The Patman-Robinson and Utterback bills, according to my Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, of course, I base my opinion understanding, would go much further. For i.nstance, they would upon the evidence. .We have the evidence of marketing and prevent the chain stores from doing a wholesale business by pur chasing goods direct from farmers and manufacturers ln large distributing specialists, or distributors who are in active busi quantities and then selling at retail. It would force the chain ness, both wholesale and retail, both independent and belong stores to buy through other wholesalers and middlemen. Of ing to chains, and every one of them testified that the cost course, anyone can see the middlemen take a profit a:r;t.d their profit would be passed along to the consumers. That would of the necessities of life is somewhere from 10 to 22 percent increase the cost of living, and that is our objection to these various percentages were stated-higher in the case of pur bills or any legislation that would do this. chase from the independent store than in the case of purchase Omitting some of her testimony, I come to the following: from ·one of the chains or combinations of independent grocers, where the middleman's expense is eliminated and Statistics show that ab.out 45 percent of our children of gram mar-school age are sufi'ering from malnutrition due to curtailed where the goods or food go directly from the producer to the food values and expenditures. This is not alone confined to relief consumer. clients but to the children and families of the wage earner and The thing ~ almost speaks for itself. A difference of even the masses as a whole. These are the people each of you gentle men represent. These are the people who depend upon you to 2 percent is entitled to our careful consideration, especially recognize their best interests. In the case of relief clients, these in hard times; but a difference that ranges from 10 to 22 people depend upon you gentlemen for their very existence. percent is one, I think, which should cause us to halt in our Again omitting further of her testimony, I read the tracks. following: Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President, may I ask the Sen ator a further question? The Federal agency- Mr. AUSTIN. I yield. Referring there to the Federal Trade Commission- Mr. VANDENBERG. Would the results which the Sen found the unnecessarily large spread between the price paid to the ator now describes flow from legislation which merely pre producer and the price charged to the consumer was due to ex vented fictitious brokerage and advertising rebates, and cessive middlemen's handling charges and the waste due to faulty handling by the many middlemen. which merely required equi~alent prices for equivalent Our survey shows these excessive charges have been corrected in purchasers? a great measure by large-scale distribution. Hence it is reasonable Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, my answer to that would be to ask, What can be gained by the passing of legislation that will "no"; but this bill goes far beyond that. tear down that which has been gained during the past 15 years? Why pass legislation which will subsidize a few middlemen and Mr. VANDENBERG. May I ask the Senator whether any burden the vast number of consumers with high costs of distribu of the various bills that are pending are confined to the tion? Is it fair or wise to penalize the whole public for the doubt particular· objectives I have just recited? ful benefit of a favored few? Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I am inclined to believe As I have stated, these questions apply particularly to the provi sions in the Robinson-Patman bill and the Utterback bill. We the Borah-Van Nuys bill is so limited. There is no express were prepared to oppose the Robinson-Patman blli; but, as you limitation in it, but it is of the type of legislation with know, it did not come up for a hearing in the regular way before which we have been acquainted throughout our history. It the Senate committee, and therefore we had no chance to voice our is general in its nature. It is not new in its administration. objections to measures which we believe would unnecessarily in crease the cost of living. To do that would be taxation without It does not undertake to cast into Washington the power of representation. dominating all business, all prices, which the pending bill 6332 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE APRIL 29 does do. The Borah-Van Nuys bill also has the merit of been effective for the accomplishment of the purposes for utilizing the courts of justice, rather than an administrative which it was written? body, for the-administration of the law. It is general in its Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I must say that, as admin scope. It is very much more comprehensive than more spe istered, I do not think it has been; but I think it could have cific language would naturally make it; and nearly all those been. Ever since the Van Camp decision I have believed that who .-appeared as witnesses favored that bill. If any legisla both the buyer and the seller are affected by that act. tion is to be enacted here to interfere with the free fiow of The excuse for not administering it more effectively there economic laws, all those who testified, save only two, as I tofore was that it was claimed that it did not affect the recall-two who had bills of their own which they were buyer as well as the seller; but in the Van Camp case, de promoting-favored the Borah-Van Nuys bill as against any cided in 1929, the Court put an interpretation on the act other bill that was pending. which, I believe, would have enabled the Federal Trade Com Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President, one further question. mission to put it into effect with the saving clauses in it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ver Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to mont further yield to the Senator from Michigan? a further question? Mr. AUSTIN. I yield to the Senator. Mr. AUSTIN. I yield. Mr. VANDENBERG. It is my understanding that the in Mr. ROBINSON. If I understand the reply of the Senator dependent merchants of the country, with whom I substan to my former question, it is that the present law is adequate, tially sympathize in many of their problems, are interested but that it has not been properly administered. The Senator only in the three objectives which I have previously recited, takes the position that there is really no necessity for further namely, protection against fictitious brokerage allowances, legislation. Is that correct? then protection--· Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, if it were left to me to de Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. President, may we not have order in cide, I should certainly take the position that it is much the Chamber? better for the welfare of the country, for the welfare of all The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point is made that there persons concerned in trade and commerce, to add nothing is a want of order. The Chair begs the Members of the Sen more to the law than is found in the Clayton Act and sec ate to observe order and asks the occupants of the galleries tion 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. I think section to refrain from conversation, as the echo of the conversation 2 of the Clayton Act, section 5 of the Federal Trade Commis in the galleries permeates the Chamber. The Chair thanks sion Act, and the Sherman antitrust law are wholly adequate the occupants of the galleries for their consideration. to take care of unfair discrimination. Mr. VANDENBERG. I will start the question over again. Mr. LOGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? It is my understanding that the independent merchants for Mr. AUSTIN. I yield. whom the proposed legislation is primarily intended are in Mr. LOGAN. Does the Senator believe that, in order to terested in three specific objectives, or at least they think they meet competition in good faith, the manufacturer or the are: First, protection against fictitious brokerage allowances; seller should be permitted to sell his product below cost? second, protection against fictitious advertising allowances; Mr. AUSTIN. I should say yes, under certain circum third, protection against discriminating prices as between stances. From my personal observation, as well as from equivalent buyers. much evidence that came before the committee, there are I can see no objection to any one of those three purposes. occasions in trade when, if one were not permitted to sell Do I understand the Senator to say that the Borah-Van Nuys below cost, he would have on his hands a great quantity of bill would achieve those purposes and yet be free from the sirup, for example, which would perish, or a great quantity difficulty and the prejudice and the criticism resi>ecting ulti of fruit, or other perishable products, foodstuffs of all kinds. mate consumer prices which the Senator has been attributing Mr. LOGAN. Mr. President, I do not think any legisla to the Robinson-Patman bill? tion would interfere with such a condition as that. What Mr. AUSTIN. The testimony tended to show that. Of I ask is, in order to meet competition, should the seller be course, the bill with which we are dealing had that for an allowed to sell below cost? objective. Section 2 of the Clayton Act was designed to pre Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I did not apprehend the vent unfair price discrimination. Let me read it at this point in the question when I answered. . That is a very diffi point: cult question of ethics, as well as of law. If the competi SEC·. 2.- That it shall be unlawful for-any person engaged m com tion in business on one side is unfair and is not restrained merce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indi by any governmental agency, I should like to ask this ques rectly, to discrimlnate in price between dtiferent purchasers of commodities, which commodities are sold for use. consumption, or tion in answer to the other: How can a man whQse busi resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the ness life depends upon meeting that sort of competition do District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under otherwise than sell below cost? the jurisdiction of the United States where the effect of such dis crimination may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to Mr. LOGAN. If he does it in order to meet legitim~te create a. monopoly in ~y line of commerce. competition, of course, he cannot continue very long, ·and he not only pulls his own temple down, but he pulls down the That is the general prohibitory part of section 2; but there temple of all others. In a given community there may be a are certain provisos which I shall now read: small dealer, perhaps, who is doing business in tbe com Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent discriml munity, and there may be a more powerful concern there, nation in price between purchasers of commodities on account of d11Ierences 1n the grade, quality, or quantity of th~ commodity sold, one which sells its products all over the country, and, realiz or that makes only due allowance for ditferences in the cost of ing that the small fellow in the community is going to get selling or transportation, or discrimination in price in the same or some business, the larger concern deliberately goes out to ditferent communities made in good faith to meet competition: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent meet competition, and sells goods in the community below persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in com cost, repeating what was done in the old days in the saie merce from selecting their own customers in bona-tide transactions of petroleum. Should that be allowed? I mean, should and not in restraint of trade. any man be allowed to sell his product below cost for the Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator a purpose of meeting competition; that is, perhaps, to drive question? his competitor from the field? · The PRESIDING OFFicER. J)oes the Senator from Ver Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, that is prohibited by law. mont yield to the Senator from Arkansas? Mr. LOGAN. Not by the Clayton Act. Mr. AUSTIN. I yield to the Senator from Arkansas ... Mr. AUSTIN. It is prohibited by the Clayton Act. I Mr. ROBINSON. That provision, of comse, is retained in trust the Senator will excuse me for differing. the section; and the substantial difference is with respect to Mr. LOGAN. In the Clayton Act, as I read it, it is pro the limitation that is sought to be imposed on quantity dis vided that nothing in the act shall prevent one from selling criminations. Does the Senator think the Clayton Act has below the standard fixed there in order to meet competition 1936 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 6333 in good faith, which would allow one to sell for whatever except the representatives of some of those with large pur he thought proper. chasing power, everyone, without an exception, insisted that Mr. AUSTIN. Oh, yes, Mr. President, but that is the dif there should be an amendment. The only disagreement was ference between the question asked and the law. "In good as to some of the language in the bill. I think the Senator faith to meet competition" is something different from un will remember that that is correct. At least the record, I derselling one's opponent to drive him out of business. That think, will bear me out in that. is the point that is prohibited by the law. The Clayton Act Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I think the witnesses re was designed to prevent such unfair competition as that. ferred to by the Senator from Kentucky did so testify; but The moment the competition enters the field of driving any there were something like 27 witnesses, and a great number one out of business, eliminating competition, or unreason of them made this qualifying statement: "If any law on this ably reducing competition, a transgression of the law occurs subject must be passed, we prefer the Borah-Van Nuys bill which can be stooped by a cease and desist order, under to the Robinson-Patman bill." And they gave their reasons the act. for the statement. Mr. LOGAN. The vice of the Clayton Act is that after . Mr. WGAN. That is quite true as to those at the last making that provision it immediately exempts-from the pro hearing. Of .course, a large majority testifying before the :visions of the law those who sell in a community in order House committee took a different attitude, as I recall. But to meet competition in good faith; and that is where the are not. the .objectives of the . Borah-Van Nuys bill exactly trouble is. - There could always be competition in good faith, the same as the objectives of the Robinson bill, and is not and then a seller could · sell to the people in a community the only disagreement as to the language used in reaching at prices lower than those at which he sells to people in some the objectives? other community. In fact, such sellers can drive a competi Mr. AUSTIN. I assumed in the hearing that the objec tor out of b~iness in one community by lowering prices, tives were tlle same, . and I am inclined to think that the and then increasing the prices of the products elsewhere in testimony tended to show they were the same. But. one of order to make up the loss. I do not think that ought to be the authors of one of the bills is on his feet now, and per allowed, although I realize the Senator is entitled to his own haps he will state whether the objectives are the same. . opinion. Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AUSTIN. Answering on the assumption in the ques Mr. AUSTIN. I yield. tion, of a purpose to drive the other fellow out, I would Mr. BORAH. I think the objectives of the two bills are agree with the learned Senator from Kentucky, with whom the same. The differences between the two proposals I will I find myself in agreement so often. I would not approve of discuss a little later, but I think both bills seek to accomplish that, and that is not my purpose in what I have to say here. the same general purpose. That is my opinion. When· I say that I think the Clayton Act is adequate to Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President, may I ask the Sena meet a condition of which the Senator speaks, it is because tor from Vermont a question? the Clayton Act in the prohibitory clause provides as fol Mr. AUSTIN. Certainly. lows: Mr. VANDENBERG. Am I to gather from the colloquy · It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in com between the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from merce • • • either directly or indirectly to discriminate in Kentucky that the Robinson bill prohibits the .sale of a com price between di1ferent purchasers of commodities • • • modity at any time below its cost of production? where the effect of such discrimination may be to substantially Mr. lessen competition. AUSTIN. I am impressed by the testimony with the idea that the bill was so interpreted. Mr. LOGAN. There is a proviso there, however, that if it Mr. VANDENBERG. May I ask the Senator from Ken is necessary in order to meet competition, they may do so. tucky if that is the fact? Mr. AUSTIN. Oh, yes; it takes care of the intent in good Mr. LOGAN. No, Mr. President; that is not true. There faith. I. do not think the business of this country as a gen is nothing in the Robinson bill which prohibits the sale of eral thing, or even to a great extent, is on a cutthroat basis, any commodity at any price at which a seller desires to dis"'! that drives the independent out, and builds up the combina pose of it; but there is a provision against his selling, for tion, or the chain-store system. I became convinced of that example, to the Senator from Michigan at one price and to after listening to the statistics compiled by the Federal Trade the Senator from Vermont at another price under the same Commission on the subject, and after listening to the testi conditions and the quality of the goods being the same. mony of men who are constantly engaged in studying dis However, so far as the Robinson bill is_concerned, the seller tribution and marketing. I intended to refer to that later, may sell at any .Price he desires. The purpose of the bill is but I will do so now. · - . _ · to compel the treatment of all customers exactly alike when Mr. LOGAN. May I interrupt the Senator once more, and the same situation applies to all of them. then I will not interfere with the ·thread of his thought Mr. VANDENBERG. If the Senator will further permit further at this time? me, I wish to ask another question. WoUld that apply Mr. AUSTIN. I yield. equally to a customer in the United States and a customer Mr. LOGAN. The Senator froin Michig~n [Mr. VANDEN out of the United States? BERG] correctly stated the objectives of the Patman bill and Mr. LOGAN. I do not think it applies to a customer out of the other bills. I ask the Senator from Vermont whether of the United States. - it is not true that everyone who appeared before oilr com Mr. VANDENBERG. The Senator does not think the pro mittee, where the Senator was so kind in helping with the vision he is talking about would prevent sales of surplus examination, and is it not· true that everyone · who has products abroad at lower prices? appeared before the House committee, and the number is Mr. LOGAN. I do not. As I recall, the provisions of the legion, has said that the Clayton Act should be amended, bill are confined specifically to the United States and posses and were they not in favor of amending the Clayton Act, sions of the United States. except those who were opposed to any legislation on the Mr. VANDENBERG. Is there any doubt about that? subject? - Mr. BORAH. I think not. Will the Senator yield to per Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, will the Senator repeat his mit me to say one word? question? Mr. AUSTIN. Yes; I yield. Mr. LOGAN. The Senator will recall that Mr. Dunn, Mr. BORAH. The Senator from Kentucky has stated apparently a very well-informed lawyer, who appeared in what I understand to be the fundamental principle of both opposition to the Robinson bill, made a splendid argument bills, and that is to compel all customers to be treated alike, before the committee, insisting that the Clayton Act ought specifying that if an advantage or a favor or a commission to be amended. Then Mr. Sammons, of New York, who also is granted to A, the seller must be prepared to grant it to is opposed to the Robinson bill, stated that it is his opinion B. That " is the fundamental principle underlying both that the Clayton Act should be amended. So far as I know, measures; and I do not see how there can be any objection 6334: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE APRIL 2~ to that fundamental principle. There may be a difference Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I did not intend to read any of view as to how to arrive at that objective, or as to the thing which related to that. better way to arrive at it; but that is what we are seeking Mr. BORAH. Pardon me. to do by all these measures. Is that not so? Mr. AUSTIN. The interrogatories that prompted my ref .. Mr. LOGAN. That is exactly my understanding. erence to this matter related to the Robinson-Patman bill, Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, if that principle were writ the pending business. Reference was made to Mr. Dunn, and ten into the bill so that all the circumstances of the di.trer comment was made upon his probity and learning a.nd special ent buyers could be considered in sizing up whether the knowledge of this subject. I therefore wish to point out that circumstances of one buyer were similar to the circum Mr. Dunn is opposed to the Robinson-Patman bill, in spite stances of another buyer, vte should not have this objection of the fact that it contains a good purpose. I think we are to the bill. The difficulty, however, is that the bill does not all agreed on the good purpose. permit any adjustment to locality or any adjustment to The address from which I shall read is not contained in the standards of living in the markets where the goods are sold record. I shall read from an address which Mr. Dunn made to a certain set of purchasers or to a certain purchaser. in the course of ·a radio debate with Representative PATMAN There is no flexibility about the bill. It is hard and fast and relating to the Patman bill. The address was made on April :fixes the price. 21, 1936, since the hearings; and, among other things, Mr. Mr. LOGAN. Will the Senator again yield to me? Dunn makes this fourth point: Mr. AUSTIN. I yield. . This being so, the third fact is that this bill has a. constructive Mr. LOGAN. I shall be very glad if the Senator will purpose in its antitrust law conception. Therefore the question it point out where there is any provision in the Borah-Va.n presents is whether it makes a. due amendment without any undue effect. For its good purpose will not save it 11 it enacts Nuys bill or the Robinson bill or any bill pending in the a. law having a bad effect. Consequently, it does not sumce 1n Senate that fixes the price or has a tendency to fix the justification of this bill to make eloquent a.nd emotional appeals price of any commodity. about its good purpose. Rather, what the public wants and is entitled to know is how this bill, 11 enacted, will actually affect Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, the most casual reading of the three principal parties to it. They are the buyer, the seller, the pending bill shows that the outstanding characteristic a.nd the consumer. of it is that the Federal Trade. Commission, an authority in It is clear that to be sound this bill must enact a. law which 1s · Washington, shall have power absolutely to. determine the just to each of these three parties, a.nd which has a due regard . for their unquestioned rights under it. Which rights are these? minimum price which may be charged for food. That is the The buyer has the right to have this bill enact an effective outstanding feature of the bill. Of course, it is covered up Federal law against unfair price discrimination. The seller has by a great many words, and it is carefully concealed in the the right to demand that this enacted law shall not be unjust or injurious to him. And the consumer has the paramount right proposition of quantity limits; but it is there. That is the to demand that this law shall not prevent economic price reduc very, very important point in the bill. tion as distinguished from wrongful price discrimination. If I can get a chance to read from Mr. Dunn's statement, In appraising this bill from the standpoint of the consumer it is necessary to keep the following fundamental considerations in I wish to do so. He was referred to, and I have been inter mind: First, this bill enacts a la.w regulating the prices of the rupted several times without having had the opportunity to ~ssential commodities of life which e7ery man, woman, and· child let him answer for himself. m the country must have and which the poor must buy. Sec Mr. LOGAN. Will the Senator permit me to interrupt him ondly, this bill prevents price reduction if and to the extent it involves wrongful price discrimination. Consequently, it must again? sharply and unquestionably distinguish between the wrongful Mr~ AUSTIN. Yes; I yield to the Senator; but I should price discrimination which it properly prohibits and the economic like to make my statement consecutive. price reduction which it must permit. For a national law can not be. tolerated which 1s effective to prevent the economic price Mr. LOGAN. I cannot let the Senator's statement go un reductiOn of the essential commodities of life a.nd thus artificially challenged. I make the statement now, as one believing he to enhance the cost of living to the people of the United States. is competent to read simple language and understand it, that the Senator from Vermont is wholly mistaken; that the That is Mr. Dunn's opinion about the pending bill. Mr. BORAH. Mr. President-- Federal Trade Commission has no· authority under any of these bills to fix the price of anything; and I shall rest my The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ver contention on that statement. mont yield to the Senator from Idaho? Mr. AUSTIN. I yield. Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, is the Senator from Vermont going to read from what Mr. Dunn said? Mr. BORAH. I am sure that that statement cannot be Mr. AUSTIN. Yes. applied with any relevancy to the bill of which I am one Mr. BORAH. I should like to read from the Borah-Van of the authors, and I do not see how it can be applied to the Nuys bill. Mr. Dunn was particularly addressing himself to other bill. I do not know where the Senator can find the particular phases of the bill which I had the honor to offer. language which justifies the argument that the bill prevents I should like to have permission to read two para.gra.phs from price reduction. the Borah-Van Nuys bill in order that we may see the per Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator tinency or impertinency of the remarks of Mr. Dunn with from Vermont a question? reference to the measure. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ver .. I am now reading from the bill introduced by the Senator mont yield to tb.C Senator from Arkansas? from Indiana [Mr. VAN NUYsJ and myself, the Borah-Van Mr. AUSTIN. I have not answered the question just pro Nuys bill. '!he bill is contained in two paragraphs. I read pounded by the Senator from Idaho, but I will also take the as follows: question of the Senator from Arkansas now. SEC. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, Mr. ROBINSON. The question relates to the same sub in the course of such commerce, to be a. party to, or assist in, a.ny ject. Referring to the bill under consideration, what is the transaction of sale or contract to sell which discrimina.tes to his language in the bill which expressly or impliedly gives to the knowledge against competitors of the purchaser, in tha.t any dis count, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge is granted Federal Trade Commission the power to fix prices or which to the purchaser over a.nd above a.ny discount, rebate, a.llowa.nce, prevents reductions in prices? · or advertising service charge available at the time o! such transac Mr. AUSTIN. The following language, I think, will an tion to said competitors in respect of a. sale of goods of like grade, swer both questions. It begins with the word uProvided/', at quality, and quantity. the bottom of page 5 and extends to page 6, and is as fol That, Mr. President, see~ to accomplish just one thing, lows: and that is that whatever is granted to one customer in the Provided, however, That the Federal Trade Commission may, way of rebates or commissions or advertising charges, and so a.fter due investigation and hearing to a.ll interested parties, fix forth, shall be available to any other customer who deals and establish quantity limits, a.nd revise the same as it fl.nd.s with the seller. That is all the bill seeks to accomplish. I necessary, as to particular commodities or classes of commodities, where it finds that a.va.ila.ble purchasers in greater quantities are so do not think anyone, Mr. Dunn or anyone else, objected to few as to render differentials on account thereof unjustly ells that. criminatory or promotive of monopoly in a.ny line of commerce; 1936. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 6335 and the foregoing shan then not be construed to permit differen The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ver tials based on ditferences in quantities greater than those so fixed mont yield to the Senator from Arkansas? and established. Mr. AUSTIN. Yes. Mr. President, if it is not apparent to everyone who hears Mr. ROBINSON. The Senator must recognize that the that language that that is a price-fixing measure, then b.ill u~der co~ide!ation takes account of and permits quan there is no use trying to construe such language. Any man tity differentials JUstified by differences in cost whether of in business who finds it impossible by virtue of the Federal tra~poita:tion or. of distribution; so that the argument from Trade Commission's order to sell his commodities for less which he IS. readmg does not appear to me fairly to support than the price fixed by the Federal Trade Commission has the contentwn that the passage of this bill would mean an his price fixed. added burden to the consumer. The object of the bill is to Mr. COUZENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? prevent large buyers from taking unfair advantage of inde Mr. AUSTIN. I will ask the Senator to let me finish the pendents by securing terms that are out of proportion to the thought. I can hardly express an idea before it is split in diff.erences in cost, thus enabling them to destroy their com the middle. The reason why the housewife has been able petitors and to monopolize the market. to buy at chain stores_for less money tQan at the independ Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President-- ent grocer and druggist is because the large chain store has . Mr. ROBINSON. It -seems to me, if the Senator will per had the capacity to buy more food and drugs for less money mit one more statement before he proceeds, that the whole than has the independent, who has to pay the cost of an force of the Senator's argument leads to the condusion that intermediary in the purchase. Let the Federal Trade Com he is justifying monopoly in the sale and distribution of mission come in and say, "Here, you cannot buy at a price products. below this price, and the way we are going to stop your doing Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, any Senator within the it is by preventing quantity differentials on what you may sound of my voice, of course, may make the inferences he buy." That is the soul of his purchase; that is the heart chooses from what I have to say, but I wish to say now of his contract; the consideration that he gave for the low since that point has been raised, that I am not for monopoly price was perhaps a 6 months' purchase, covering a vast in the distribution of food and clothing and that the whole quantity of materials, perhaps all the materials the seller purpose of my remarks is to preserve, if possible, competition. had to sell, assuring him security, simplifying his costs by If .I could have my way there would be free economic play, going to him to buy instead of having the seller come and ~ull competition; there would not be a government stepping drum him for trade. In other words, the price is fixed m to help out one phase of distribution at the expense of whenever the Federal Trade Commission steps in and says another phase; but there would be left these wonderful "You cannot make use of your purchasing power by buyin~ methods of distribution and perfect freedom to fight it out on a quantity basis." in the present state of the law and on economic laws as Then look at the impracticability of the provision which they have done heretofore, and to the benefit of the con contains the clause "available purchasers * * * are so sumer. few as to render differentials on account thereof unjustly Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? ·discriminatory." Assume, as the evidence tended to show Mr. AUSTIN. Yes. . that in New England there are only 2 chain stores and in New York there are 200; what an exposure to arbitrary, Mr. ROBINSON. How long does the Senator think the lit unfair, unjust, and damaging control by the Government tle man, the independent dealer, would last if he were left there is contained in that provision which gives to the Fed absolutely to the mercy of the large dealer without regulation eral Trade Commission freedom to say that 2 . are too few by any Government authority; and is it not a fact that the whole trend of conditions is toward monopoly and that that in number when compared with a neighborhoo~ just a little way off where there are 200. has prompted the enactment of regulatory legislation? Of course, it is possible to drive the chain store out of Mr. AUSTIN. I say "no" to that question. On the con business and to set up the other method of distribution by trary, the evidence which can be read without spending more a statute, but, while engaging in such a performance, let us t~n one night in the reading shows there ha.s developed in think of the real person who pays the cost, and that is the this country a keen and efficient method of distribution a consumer. I wish to call attention to some of the considera keen competition between those who distribute thrm{gh tions respecting the consumer. wholesalers and middlemen and those who distribute directly · · It was testified during the hearings before the House from the producer to the consumer. Judiciary Committee that the consumers of the Nation More than that, within each one of these branches of dis would have to bear an annual increase of $750 000 000 on tribution· there is keen competition between those who are their food bill alone as the price of enacting thfs ~easure. figh~ing for the same market, chain stores in competition with That statement has not been countered by any evidence and cham stores, wholesalers in competition with wholesalers. i? my opinion, it cannot be gainsaid. It is founded u~n ~ The evidence with respect to the possible injury of the· inde report of the Federal Trade Commission made after thorough ~endent grocer or other small store is that they are increasing examination of the situation. That report which was the m .strength, that they are improving in their capacity to result of a survey contained the following expression: handle the business of retail distribution, rather than the contrary. That is repeated by witness after witness who has It is quite as important from the consumer's standpoint that costs. of ~chnical production be lowered as that cost of so-called better advantage of knowing the facts than we do, and after a di~tr1bU~10n be reduced. But while there still remains much to be careful survey. accompliShed in: the former direction, greater success has been Mr. BORAH. Mr. President-- attained than m . the latter. Quantity production, which has been enor.r~wus~y mcreased, and severely scientific methods which The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HATCH in the chair). have ~reva1led m many fields of production, particularly of manu Does the Senator from Vermont yield to the Senator from facturmg, have been, among others, factors 1n lowering unit Idaho? cost. * * * The c~~s o~ dist~ibution, on the other hand, are for many food Mr. AUSTIN. I yield. commodit1es mordmately high. • • • The costs of distribu Mr. BORAH. The Senator will agree will he not that tio~ • • * form no inconspicuous part of the final price witness after witness representing the independent business which the consumer has to pay for the foods which he purchases a~d these costs, together with attending wastes of foods • * ~ men testified that unless they have some protection such as With reference to wholesaling, are unnecessarily high. is designed by these bills they cannot remain in business? · The delivery of goods from the wholesaler's or jobber's place o! Mr. AUSTIN. I think I could not quite follow the Senator sale to the store of the retailer is a matter of very serious import. from Idaho to that extent. The testimony, as I recall it, was Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. President, will the Senator YI'eld at to ~e effect that the small merchant, the independent, is that point? . fanng by comparison better than is the retailer in the chain 6336 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE APRIL 29 stores. If I get to it, I shall produce the evidence on that Mr. AUSTIN. The Senator from Michigan is correct. point and the statistics which establish the fact. Mr. VANDENBERG. If the Senator will permit me, I Mr. KING. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? do not think that point can be too often emphasized, be Mr. AUSTIN. I yield. cause I am· in a position of wanting to reach the precise Mr. KING. I ask for information in view of the state objective which we have repeatedly stated, but I do not ment made by the Senator a moment ago. Does the Senator want to reach a lot of objectives which are not in con interpret the bill under consideration as a prohibition against templation in those limited purp()ses. I do not want to direct sales from the manufacturer to the consumer? Is create more problems than I solve. there anything that would interrupt a transaction between a Mr. AUSTIN. I thank the Senator for what he has sa.id manufacturer or producer of a commodity, no matter what because I think he grasps the objectives at which I am it is, whether big or little, and the ultimate consumer, so aiming. that the manufacturer or producer would be forced to sell I wish to continue my reference to the amount of injury through wholesalers, through brokerage firms, and so on, in to the consumer which the passage of this bill would entail. order to reach the ultimate consumer? Mr. McNair said further, among other things: Mr. AUSTIN. I do not so interpret the provisions of the The first point that it is essential to bear in mind is that bill. roughly hal! of the consumer's dollar spent for merchandise Mr. KING. If it is susceptible of that interpretation, I bought over the counter of a retail store goes to cover costs of should be opposed to it-that is, if there is any provision in distribution, or marketing. In other words, manufacturers' sell ing and advertising costs. wholesaling costs, and retailing costs the bill which would prohibit direct sales. ordinarily are just as large a part of the final dollar of sales as Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I had not finished my discus are manufacturing and production costs. Not more than half the sion of the consumers' interest in the pending measure. I consumer's dollar really goes to cover the labor and other costs involved 1n the manufacture of goods. invite attention to the testimony of Mr. McNair, teacher-in The point has been made· most effectively by the studies of the the Harvard school of business. This rilan's lifework has Brookings Institution that the future progress of the United been the study of distribution costs. He said, among other States depends very largely on placing goods and services in the things: hands of final consumers at lower and lower costs in order that the consumer's dollar may go further. This 1s what is meant by It seems to me that in considering these bills your committee increasing consumer purchasing power. Now any saving in the should give careful attention to the fact that consumer purchasing distribution-cost half of the consumer's dollar increases con power must be preserved and that a reduction in the cost of distri sumer purchasing power just as much as a saving in the bution is fully as important in the preservation and the increasing manufacturing-cost hal! of the dollar. 1!, through improved of consumer's purchasing power as the reduction in the cost of distribution methods, consumers are able to buy goods for 10 or manufacture. 15 cents less on the dollar of sales than they can buy them through other channels of distribution, then that 10- or 15-cent That is almost in the same terms as the report of the saving is an increase in consumer purchasing power. It releases Federal Trade Commission: that much purchasing power for the buying of other goods, and I think the salvation of the capitalistic system depends upon the making of those goods affords employment to additional per getting merchandise into the hands of the consumers at lower and sons that otherwise would not have jobs. lower prices, and one of the great advantages in the reduction of That the 15 cents of consumer saving shown by the figures to distribution costs is achieved by large-scale distribution. I believe which I referred is in no sense an exaggeration 1s attested by the such operations will place merchandise in the hands of the con Final Report of the Federal Trade Commission on the Chain sumers at lower and lower prices. I am in agreement that there Store Investigation, in which it is stated with reference to retail bave been certain abuses. I do not condone them. I think legisla drug prices that ''the geometric average of chain and independent tion may be called for to correct them. But I believe your com prices, when weighted by chain and when weighted by independ mittee should be extremely careful in ·recommending such legisla ent volume, indicates that the prices of independents are from tion to see that no injury is done to the consumer's purchasing 14.527 percent (Detroit) to 22.72 percent (Washington) higher power, because that is the most important step in recovery. than those of the chains in the four cities studied by the Com mission • • •." That particular part of Mr. McNair's testimony refers to the question asked by the Senator from Idaho [Mr. BoRAH]. Just think· of that-roughly from 14 percent to 22 percent Mr. BORAH. Mr. Presiden~ · higher in the independents than in the chain stores. Mr. AUSTIN. I yield to the Senator from Idaho. Such savings are made possible by the development of large scale methods of distribution in the direction of combining or Mr. BORAH. I do not under~tand how it can be con telescoping the wholesale and retall functions under one over tended that if we through law impose upon the large dis head. The large chain-store company goes direct to manufac• tributor the obligation to treat all customers alike that is in turers instead of buying to any great extent from middlemen. any way interfering with free competition. Then the witness goes on with examples. Mr. AUSTIN. There could not be any competition if by This testimony is quite voluminous, and I regret that I statute we fixed the prices to a common level all over the feel obliged to read so much of it here. I should not do so United States. were it not for the fact that the testimony was not printed Mr. BORAH. I am not proposing to do that. and did not arrive until this morning. Mr. AUSTIN. That is the effect of a Federal statute. Mr. VANDENBERG. May I ask whose testimony the Mr. BORAH. I am not proposing to fix any prices. I pro Senator was just reading? pose to say to the large dealers, "You may fix the price at Mr. AUSTIN. I was just reading from Mr. McNair's testi whatever you may choose to fix it, but wlien you fix it you mony. must give A the same benefit you give B." Mr. VANDENBERG. It is nowhere contended. is it, by Mr. AUSTIN. Yes; and a statute like that would be like Professor McNa-ir or any of the rest of the witnesses, that a statute that declared that one could worship God in any it is necessary to maintain the privilege of fictitious dis way he liked, provided it was according to ·the Protestant counts in order to maintain these consumer advantages? faith. By such a law as that we would fix the price level Mr. AUSTIN. Not at all. all over the United States. Mr. VANDENBERG. Therefore, a measure directly aimed Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator at the prevention of fictitious discounts and discriminatory yield? discounts would not be objectionable from the standpoint The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MINToN in the chair). the Senator argues, nor would it fall under the indictment Does the Senator from Vermont yield to the Senator from he announces? Michigan? Mr. AUSTIN. Not at all, Mr. President. :Mr. AUSTIN. I yield. Mr. VANDENBERG. And it is possible to have legisla Mr. VANDENBERG. Am I correctly inforined that Pro tion confined to those particular objectives? fessor McNair also stated it to be his belief that the Borah Mr. AUSTIN. These witnesses thought so. They testi· Van Nuys bill safeguards the consumers' interests to a fied that, in their opinion, the Borah-Van Nuys bill would substantially greater degree than does the -Robinson-Pat do that. roan bill, and that he had no substantial objection to the The statement I made here that I should prefer no legis Borah-Van Nuys bill? lation to any that is before us represents only my own opin- 1936 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 6337 ion, expressed in response to a question here. I believe there it passed. That must be the reason for the inclusion of certain provisions which go much further than merely to prevent unjusti would be a greater benefit to the consumer from leaving fied discrimination. the Clayton Act just exactly as it is than from changing it at all; but that is only my opinion. I arm trying to Mr. Nystrom pictured the various methods of distribution adhere to the question pending before the Senate, and to in a very clear manner, as follows: apply to this bill the evidence which came before the com The major distribution methods in this country exist in many mittee; and it should be remembered that out of the 27 variat ions, but there are two major types. One is sale through wholesalers or middlemen who sell to retailers, who in turn sell witnesses who appeared before the committee, not one of to consumers. As against that is the other, which is sale directly them favored the Robinson-Patman bill-a most amazing to the retailer, large or small, but generally large, who can take situation. such quantities as the manufacturer prefers to dispose of. These I two are the major channels or methods. They have been in have the figures of the division. Twenty-seven witnesses conflict for more than 25 years. They have fought each other to testified, and of the entire group not one testified in favor of a standstill. the Robinson:.Patman bill. Twenty-one either testified in I am of the opinion that the department stores reached their favor of the Borah-Van Nuys bill or stated that if some bill peak in about 1926. There has been no material growth in their line since that time. There is no evidence that they will continue . is to be enacted, it is the least objectionable. Of the remain to grow much more. There may be a slight growth, but it does ing six, two opposed all bills, two preferred bills of their own, not appear that it will be important. and two made no reference to any bill. The mail-order houses apparently reached their peak in 1919 and Mr. VAN NUYS. Mr. President-- 1920. We will always have mail-order houses in this country, but the possibility of any large growth among them is very slight. The PRESIDING OFFICER. nOes the Senator from The chain stores were the . last to appear. They grew very Vermont yield to the Senator from Indiana? rapidly in the twenties. They probably grew too fast for their Mr. AUSTIN. I yield to the Senator. own good. They grew like mushrooms. and they reached their peak in 1929. It remains to be seen whether their growth can Mr. VAN NUYS. Of course, the hearing was on the so be resumed, but I think it is very doubtful. called Borah-Van Nuys bill; but at the hearings in the House There are figures available in the census of 1933 showing that on the original Robinson-Patman bill a great volume of wit the proportion of chain stores in that year had increased over nesses, representative men from _all over the United States, 1929. I do not think that is sound evidence that the chain stores grew in that interval. The most logical assumption, in my opinion, testified in favor of that bill. I think that is a true statement, is that by and large the chain stores have enjoyed their most im is it not? portant recent growth from th·e sale of perishable goods, and Mr. AUSTIN. I believe that is correct. As a matter of fact, when the depression came those saies declined and the number of chain stores decreased. I would not be surprised, therefore, if the I believe I have seen it stated, although I do not know from next census, that of 1935, will show that chain stores represent a observation, that there was substantially no hearing of those smaller percentage of the total retail service than in 1933. opposed to the bill before the House committee; so we have the strange set-up here of a report of hearings in the House Omitting some, I come to this: These various distributing systems are in keen competition. for the bill, and a report of hearings in the Senate against From the public standpoint that seems to be a very desrrable the bill. thing. We are now benefiting from a better retail service than Among other things, Mr. McNair said: ever before, and better than what is available anywhere else in the world. I have devoted some 15 years to a study of retail distribution, and I am convinced that retail distribution by the chain stores has Later he testified: built up their business by serving the consumer better than he would otherwise have been served. I see no point in jumping on The provision for wholesale differentials, which is in the Rob the chain stores for something you think they might do, and open inson-Patman bill, would, if availed of, . force the manufacturer the door to the manufacturer to go ahead and fix his prices. to allow wholesalers a discount which would place the chain stores and other large independent distributors at a decided disad Again he said: vantage. I think the chains have contributed to the higher standards of Mr. Wheeler Sammons, an executive of the Institute of living. Increased purchasing power has made it possible for the consumer to have 10 or 15 cents more of his dollar. Distribution, testified at large upon the injury to the con sumer. I caimot refer to all I should like to refer to. He Again: made a similar claim, that the savings to the consumer as There are a number of studies that have been made by the a result of sales through the chain store direct to the con Federal Trade Commission of various independent organizations in Chicago and elsewhere, comparing the prices of chains and units, sumer was from 10 to 20 cents of the consumer's dollar. not just "loss leader" items but covering a wide range, and they Among other things, he said: all indicate that chains sell at lower prices than independents. Mr. Chairman, I would, for the purposes of the record, like to There are surveys that show a range of anywhere from 6 or 7 per recall attention to certain figures mentioned by Senator BoRAH, cent up to as high as 22 percent in the city of Washington, in the I believe, in regard to wages and expenses in chain stores in com drug trade, by the Federal Trade Commission. parison with expenses and wages paid by independent distributors. Again he says: It should be pointed out that the Government figures relating to proprietor-owned stores do not include the compensation taken by I have no objection to measures which undertake to enforce the proprietor, while in the case of the chain stores the compen proper standards, but I do object to measures which rob the con sation of the manager is, of course, included. Sixty-odd percent sumer of the benefits he can receive through large-scale methods of the stores in this country sell but $10,000 or less a year. If of distribution, which is one of our most serious problems. Large you add the figure mentioned-! believe 20 percent--as expenses, scale distribution reduces the cost of distribution and increases the percentage, only $35 a week would be for the proprietor of the purchasing power of the consumer. I do not like to see the such a store, you will see it as at least another 20 percent, mak consumer robbed of the benefit of that. I think there is a sharp ing 40 percent or more in all, or twice what I believe was men distinction between the kind of bigness which becomes big through tioned as the chain-store levy on the consumer. price fixing and monopolistic practices and that which grows by During the depression the consumers were forced to patronize means of competition and giving the consumer superior service in chains more heavily to hold down expenses, which accounts for the benefits of that competition. the better proportionate showing of the chain stores. You will find now, however, a greater proportionate increase in independent Now, let me call attention to the testimony .of a practical stores' sales now, for people normally disregard savings often for merchant, Paul H. Nystrom. He is also professor of market convenience and other factors. There is a place for both always. ing at Columbia University, but he has been engaged in the retail business, either directly or indirectly. He says: Mr. Sammons testified as follows: The Robinson-Patman bill, Senator, eliminates quantity dis I mean directly in an official way-for nearly 40 years. I am also counts in practical effect--it just adds that the elimination must be president of Limited Price Variety Stores Association, an association without discrimination. The consumer is to be raided without made up of chains, voluntary chains, and independent retailers. discrimination, in other words. So he knows both views of the same matter. Mr. BARBOUR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? With respect to the consumer's interest, he says: Mr. AUSTIN. I yield. It is inevitable, in my opinio~. that if S. 3154 is passed retail prices must rise. That seems to me must be the purpose behind Mr. BARBOUR. A great many people have written me in the bill. That must be the reason why certain proponents desire respect to this matter of differentials in discounts. In all 6338 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE APRU.. 2~ ·of the bills there ·ts a parity as far as the differential of dis (2) The elimination of stabilized production which so often makes it possible for manufacturers, particularly small ones, to count is concerned, in this respect, that a manufacturer or a produce goods for large buyers during the off-peak season, thereby distributor selling to customer A a certain article has to make lowering prices to all buyers and consumers; and the emphasis the same quantity discount that he makes to customer- B of "peaks and valleys" of production, with attendant seasonal buying the same amount·of the same article. . Is that a cor lay-otis of labor. (3) The freezing of the price level, with much greater attendant rect statement? advantage in the long run to large buyers than to small ones. Mr. AUSTIN. That is not correct. If that were so, there ( 4) The subsidizing of the middleman, at the expense of a vastly would not be this protest, probably, with respect to that con larger but vocally less powerful group, the consumers. trol of quantity limits. If the bill provided that the same ( 5) Harassing bureaucratic control over industry by the Federal Trade Commission, similar to that exercised by the N . R. A. discount should be given to all who purchased the same quan (6) Unwarranted interference with business, in direct contrast tity, that would be a wholly different thing from the propo- with the President's promise of a. "breathing spell" to business. sition now before us. · I come now to another question which this witness Mr. BARBOUR. · Mr. President, if I ·may interrupt again, answered: that situation is of paramount importance, and I do not Question. Do chain stores sen for less? think I am betraying any confidence-! am perfectly willing Answer. Yes; both according to the experience of most con to ask the questions when the Senators themselves are pres sumers and in fact. ent-when I say that I have asked the same question of the Average, year-in-and-year-out experience, and not specific in Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINSON] and the Senator from stances, must, of course, supply the fair answer to this question. In an investigation of · retail prices in various types of business Kentucky [Mr. LoGAN], and I was assured that while any net made through the Federal Trade Commission, Uncle Sam, himself, price could be charged for one cap manufactured in Newark found that chain grocery prices are 8.1 percent lower, on the aver and a different net price charged for a dozen caps, and still a age, and chain drug stores prices 12.5 percent lower than the be retail prices of independent establishments competing with such . different price for a gross, it would necessary to make the chain stores. These figures indicate that chains bring to con same net price to two or more customers buying a like quality sumers, by way of direct savings to the thrifty, about $776,000,000 of product in like amount. The Senator's statement to me a year. · that that is not so casts a very different light on the whole There is another group of people who are vitally affected., subject, because in that field has come the greatest protest vitally interested, and that is the farmer group. Chester that has been lodged with me. Gray, who is well known, possibly, to every Senator. and who Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, let me call the attention of probably has the confidence of every Senator, representing the Senator from New Jersey to page 6 of the bill, line 8, the American Farm Bureau Federation, on March 30, 1936, where it is provided: filed a statement from which I read the following: And the foregoing shall then not be construed to permit ditier On the general question of legislation, such as is contained in entials based on dtlferences ·in quantities greater than those so the Robinson bill, S. 3154, and in the Patman and Utterback meas fixed and established. ures on the House side, as well as in S. 4171 by Senators BoRAH To what does that refer? That refers an order made and VAN NUYs, all of which measures are generally described as to being "price discrimination" bills, the approach of the f.ederation in Washington to take effect in California, in Burlington, is that of analyzing these bills, particularly in relation to their Vt., in Newark, N.J., anywhere and everywhere all over the etrects on retail prices. In this connection the report by Senator United States, if the person upon whom the order bears had LoGAN on the Robinson measure says: "In forbidding its (economy) use, and foregoing its benefits, the public is but paying a willing business in those places. Disregarding all the circumstances, price for its freedom from monopoly control." This is a virtual disregarding" the local merchant's set-up, his cost of doing confession that the effect of the measure upon which the report business, and the competitive factors he encounters in his by Senator LoGAN was written will be to raise retail prices and own locality, which the other man off somewhere else does that the public will be willing to pay higher retail prices as a. method of getting rid of monopolistic control ~ not encounter, disregarding all of those things, the fixing of the minimum quantity or the maximum quantity by the I omit a portion and come to the following: Federal Trade Commission fixes a dead level of price. Let The public is fairly well protected under present situations which me read the part of the bill which shows that: relate to retail trades in the competitive practices which are now in effect. Too much legislation, or the enactment of a .bill of too That the Federal Trade Commission may, after due investiga severe a character in strait jacketing the distribution agencies, tion and hearing to all interested parties, fix and establish quan corporate or cooperative as the case may be, mlght be expected to tity l1mits, and revise the same as it finds necessary, as to par- make the consumers, in which agriculture is part, pay penalties in . ticula.r commodities or classes of commodities, where it finds that higher prices which are not now required to be paid. available purchasers in greater quantities are so few as to render It may be doubted that the agricultural cooperatives would differentials on account thereof unjustly discriminatory or promo desire to be limited in quotations of price so that if a quotation tive of monopoly in any line of commerce. was given to one customer, slight or no variety would be permitted in quoting the same commodity to another customer, where local Take the case where there may be 2 chain stores in one trade or other conditions might necessitate a dtlference in price district and 200 in another district. There is a situation quotations if the business is to be retained. Indeed, agricultural where this tremendous power may be exercised here at cooperatives desire that if the general type of legislation under dis cussion is to be enacted, such as is contained in the Borah-Van Washi.ngton to fix one price in one place and another price Nuys measure, S. 4171, it should be made somewhat clearer in in another place by means of fixing the quantity limit and regard to prohibition of discounts, advertising allowances,. and changing it up or down from time to time. In other words, similar devices which if given to one customer and denied to is A.? another places the latter a.t a disadvantage. not the Robinson-Patman bill an extension of theN. R. Accordingly the following suggestion is presented as an amend That question has threaded all through the testimony before ment to be incorporated at the proper place in S. 4171: the committee. Many of these practical businessmen and "It shall be unlawful for any person as seller, buyer, broker, these marketing and distributing specialists testified that in agent, or otherwise, to be a party to any transaction of sale that includes or results in the payment by or for the seller of broker's all probability the bearing of this bill on business would be fees or commissions to any person directly or indirectly employed the same as the bearing of theN. R. A. on business, namely, or controllec:t by the buyer." fixing prices. The National Cooperatives' Council was also represented I now call attention to a statement filed by the secretary at the hearings. Mr. Miller, representing the council, of the National Voluntary Groups Institute, and vice presi testified as follows: dent of the Independent Grocers Alliance Distributing Co., Because of our interest in such legislation our council at its and I wish to say in passing that a great percentage of the annual meeting last January endorsed the Robinson-Patman bill. witnesses who appeared before the subcommittee represented Some time after that, however, we first learned th at on J anuary independent dealers. They wer~ by no means all represent 16, which was after our annual meet ing had adjourned, t he sub ing chain stores. A large number of them were independ committee of the Senate had reported out the blll and had inter preted some of its provisions. Upon learning of that, copies of ents. I read: the bill were sent to the member organiZations, and immediately What would be the lmm.ediate effect of enacting this bill? there were protests recelved. The immediate result of enacting such a measure would be-- We feel that the business of the cooperatives would be sertously (1) A material increase in the cost of living to consumers, par handicapped, resulting in tremendous losses to farmer members. ticularly to those of low and moderate incomes. One of the major evil.s we saw is that some of our cooperatives in 1936 .CONGRESSIONAL ,RECORD-:-SENATE. 6339 New England may be selllng in 50 markets, while other milk to one customer they be granted on equally proportionate terms cooperatives may be selling in 150 markets, and still others 1n to all customers. We believe that these restrictions should be several hundred markets. If in any one of those markets a situa confined to giving equal treatment to an customers with.in the tion developed where there were reduced prices, under the .terms same city, town, or village. , of the other bill, as interpreted, the cooperatives would either For example, it might be quite possible that one of our cooper have to be forced to withdraw from that market and also with atives desires to put on a heavy advertising campaign in one draw from others, or would be compelled to make reductions in particular city on a cooperative basis with its customers in that . all other markets, which would run into many m.illlons of dollars market. Certainly, if it desires to do so, it should not be re of losses to the farmers and those cooperatives. quired to put on a similar advertising campaign in all of the other cities, towns, or villages in which it operates. The adver There is much more of importance that this witness testi tising campaign put on in one particular city may be for the fied to, but I have not the time to read it. purpose of opening up new territory and may not be necessary Mr. President, I have a letter from the National Coopera in other markets in which the cooperative operates. Under these circumstances, the benefits of sales promotional work in new tive Milk Producers• Federation, dated April 29, 1936, which markets under which our cooperatives and their customers share I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the RECoRD the expenses would be entirely eliminated by the requirement at this point in my remarks. that similar work be done in markets already long established. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so These amendments which we are asking will not in any way interfere with the central objects of the legislation. On the other ordered. hand, "they are essential to the continuance of our producer The letter is as follows: owned and producer-controlled. cooperative marketing associa- THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK tions. PRODUCERS' FEDERATION, If lt be impossible to obtain the.se changes in the bill, we re _ Washington, D. C., April 29, 1936. quest, on behalf of the organized dairy farmers of this ·country, MY DEAR SENATOR: We would like to call your attention to the represented by our federation, that milk and its products be spe. harmful effect which certain provisions of the Robinson-Patman cifically exempted from the provisions of this legislation. bill, now being considered in the Senate, would have on the opera Respectfully submitted. tions of our farmer-owned and farmer-controlled cooperative mar- . THE NATIONAL 0ooPERATIVE Mn.K keting associations. _. PRODUCERS FEDERATION, With the principal objectives of the bill. which are directed By CHAS. W. HoLMAN, Secretary. against the elimination of false brokerage allowances and false Mr. AUSTIN. My attention has been called by Mr. Don· ad vertising allowances, we are in full accord. Other provisions of the bill, however, would be destructive to cooperative marketing ald Kane, of the National Cooperative Milk Producers• Fed· of agricultural products. eration, to the situation in New England, as follows: Section 2 -(a) of the bill requires that the same price be charged In your particular a.rea the New England Dairies, a cooperative by sellers to all of their customers for goods of the same grade of more than 20,000 dairy farmers, sells milk in from 30 to 40 and quality. Many of our large cooperatives sell milk, butter, markets. In each of these markets local conditions must be con cheese, and other dairy products in hundreds of dllferent markets. sidered in fixing the price at which the milk is sold to the deal The Dairymen's League· Cooperative Association, Inc., with 35,000 ers. It would be utterly impossible to charge the same price t_o farmer members, sells milk and cream in more than 150 markets all buyers in the different markets. In addition we must be per in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey;-the Pure Milk Asso mitted to meet local competition which is wholly intrastate and ciation of Chicago, with approximately 16,000 farmer members, this Js free from any control whatsoever. sells milk and cream in about 15· markets in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin; Land O'Lakes Creameries, Inc., sells butter, cheese, Mr. President, I believe I shall conclude my remarks by evaporated milk, and other dairy products in practically every large referring to some of the ·effects testified to not only by those market east of Minneapolis. Land O'Lakes Creameries, Inc.; is a federation of farmer-owned and farmer-controlled creame-ries, whose testimony I have read but by many others of the 27 cheese factories, and evaporated milk plants located throughout to whom I have referred. These witnesses, in opposing the he Northwest, and having a farm membership of nearly 100,000 Robinson-Patman bill, stated that the following would be dairy farmers. These illustrations could be amplified a hundred fold, and exist not only in the dairy field but in every field of its effect: agriculture. It is an anticonSumer bill, in that it would increase the Obviously, these large-scale cooperative ventures require that the cost of the necessities of life, and thus reduce the standard prices paid by purchasers of our products be determ.ined ( 1) by living. the economic differences between various markets, particularly of with reference to the purchasing power of the varied communities, It would injure the farmer by reducing the price of what and (2) the competition which we are required to meet in each he sells and increasing the cost of what he buys. of the markets in which we operate. · It would reduce consumption, and thus produce unem It is not at all cle-ar under the provisions of this propoSed legis· lation as to whether the fundamental necessity of charging differ ployment of labor. ent prices in different markets is to be recognized as legal. Assum . lt_would subsidize the expensive and inefficient multiple ing that such different prices are recognized under the bill as middleman system of distribution. economically and legally sound, we are still confronted with the absolute prohibition against meeting competition contained in the It would lessen competition and foster monopoly. bill. It is a price-fixing measure. The present antitrust statute provides that price discriminations It would directly reverse the recent trend toward lower made in good faith to meet competition shall not be considered a distribution cost by preventing the telescoping of wholesale violation of the law. This provision is eliminated by the Rohinson Patman bill. Thus in every city where competitors cut prices and and retail fUnctions under one overhead. are not subject to this bill because either (1) they operate only in A vote for this bill is a vote for special privilege at the expense of one market and give the same price to all of their customers or the American consuming public. · (2) they operate in intrastate commerce and thus are not subject to the bill, our cooperatives will be forced to drop out of the It would result in bureaucratic control over industry. market or, if they meet the competition, they must lower their It would emphasize "peaks and valleys" of production, with prices in every other market in which they operate. Should they meet this local competition and not reduce their price to the same the attendant evil of seasonal unemployment. level in every other market, they will be liable under this bill for For these and other reasons I am opposed to the bill. triple damages to each of their customers in every other market in the United States. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE Thus, under the provisions of this bill, the life of every legiti A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Halti mate farmers' cooperative association in this country is imperiled. Under the pressure of local and uncontrolled competition which we gan, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had cannot legally meet, our cooperatives will be killed Off slowly by passed a bill ai. R. 12395) to ptovide revenue, equalize taxa either having to retire from every market where unfair competition tion, and for other purposes, in which it requested the con exists, by being forced to lower prices throughout the United States to the level required to meet such competition, or by meeting such currence of the Senate. competition in violation of the statute and being killed by damage HOUSE BILL REFERRED suits under the triple-damage clause. We therefore urge upon you in behalf of the organized dairy The bill (H. R. 12395) to provide revenue, equalize taxa farmers of this country to restore the language or the original tion, and for other purposes, was read twice by its title and Clayton Act, which makes it permissible to meet competition in good faith. _referred to the Committee on Finance. Although this is the most serious effect of this bill on dairy Mr. HASTINGS obtained the floor. farmers, we would like to point out one other section of the bill Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? which we feel will be extremely dangerous to some of our coopera tives. This provision is contained in section (c) of the proposed Mr. HASTINGS. I yield. bill, which requires that where advertising allowances are granted. Mr. McNARY. I suggest the absence of a quorum. LXXX--401. 6340 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENATE _APRIL 29 The PRESIDrnG OFFICER (Mr. O'MAHoNEY in the The junior Senator from New York [Mr. WAGNER] also chair). The clerk will call the roll. advised me that the people of the country are never going The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Sen- back to the days of what he calls "reactionary administra- ators answered to their names: tions for some 12 years." He continued: Adams Clark Keyes RadclUfe They are never going back to the days when the kind of poli .Ashurst Connally King Reynolds cies in which the Senator from Delaware believes are to control. Austin Coolidge La Follette Robinson It cannot be done. So give it up. Bachman Copeland Lewis Russell Bailey Couzens Logan Schwellenbach It may be that the people are never going back to the Barbour Davis Lonergan Sheppard Barkley Dieterich Long Shipstead policies in which ~ believe; but if that be a fact, it will be Benson Donahey McAdoo Smith because this administration is taking the country so far and Bilbo Du1Iy McKellar Steiwer Black Pletcher McNary Thomas, Okla. so rapidly over a dangerous course that it will be impossible Bone Frazier Maloney Thomas, Utah for it to get back. Borah George Metcalf Townsend I shall not, however, follow the advice given by the Sen Brown Gerry Minton Tydings Bulkley Gibson Moore Vandenberg ator from New York and "give it up." Bulow Glass Murphy Van Nuys In England the minority is called "His Majesty's layal ·Burke Gu1Iey Murray Wagner Byrd Hale Neely Walsh opposition." In order to properly describe it in this coun Byrnes Harrison Norris Wheeler try, we have to leave out the word "loyal." I shall continue Capper · ·Hastings - · Ny'e White .- for a -time, at least, to be a part ·of "His Majesty's opposi Caraway Hatch O'Mahoney Carey Hayden Overton tion", in an effort to show tne· inconsistencies that abound Chavez Johnson Pittman in the New Deal, the emptiness of the claims made for it, The PRESIDING O;FFICER (Mr. MURRAY in the chair). a?d the dangers that confront us if we do · not check it Eighty-five Senators having · answered to their names, a soon. quorum is present. · February 22 of this year the Honorable James A. Farley, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, made a RELIEF OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF FOREIGN SERVICE speech before the Washington Day banquet of the Kansas The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate ·the Democratic Club at Topeka, Kans. This speech was printed amendinents of the House of ·Representatives to the bill in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of February ~5 of this year, Mr. HALE. Then, the Senator's amendment would not ~CUTIVE SESSION affect them? Mr. Mr. this Mr. BORAH. I do not think so. ROBINSON. President, unless Senators at Mr. HALE. That is what I supposed, but the so-called time have something further to offer, I move that the Senate Robinson bill, of course, would, if enacted, affect them very proceed to the consideration of executive business. seriously. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing the consideration of executive business. to the amendment offered by the Senator from Idaho [Mr. EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED BoRAH] to the amendment reported by the committee. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MOORE in the chair) laid The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. before the Senate messages from the President of the United Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President, I discussed with the States submitting sundry nominations, which were referred Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Kentucky this to the appropriate committees. morning a brief amendment designed to illuminate the ap CFor nominations this day received, see the end of Senate parently intended meaning of the bill. I should like to offer proceedings.) · the amendment now. It is my understanding it is not the purpose of the Robinson bill to prevent discrimination in EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF A COMMITTEE price by reason of the difference in the quantity of the com Mr. McKELLAR, froni the Committee on Post Offices and modity sold in respect to the industrial-production activities Post Roads, reported favorably the nominations of sundry of the country. I am told by both the able Senator from postmasters. Arkansas and the able Senator from Kentucky that that is The PRESIDING OFFICER. The reports will be placed the fact. I have submitted this amendment to them, and on the Executive Calendar. they have indicated a willingness to take it to conference for If there be no further reports of committees, the Calendar further consideration. of Nominations is in order. Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. President, I find that there are WINND'RED D. FLATEN several amendments yet to be proposed. I should like to The legislative clerk read the nomination of Winnifred D. ask the Senator from Michigan to have his amendment printed, and also to ask other Senators who are in position Flaten to be postmaster at Edinburg, N.Dak. to do so and who desire to present amendments to have The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nom them printed so that they may be available for the study ination is confirmed. The Chair is informed that that is the only nomination of Senators in the further consideration of the bill. on the calendar. I am advised that the bill cannot be brought to a con RECESS clusion this evening, because some amendments have not as yet been prepared, which their proponents desire to The Senate resumed legislative session. offer. So if Senators will be good enough to submit their Mr. ROBINSON. I move that the Senate take a recess amendments and have them printed it will facilitate a until 12 o'clock noon tomorrow. conclusion of the bill tomorrow, and we may then be able The motion was agreed to; and Cat 4 o'clock and 10 min to devote the remaining days of the week to office business. utes p. m.) the Senate took a recess until tomorrow, Thurs Mr. VANDENBERG. The Senator would not object to day, April 30, 1936, at 12 o'clock meridian. letting my amendment stand as pending? Mr. ROBINSON. 0~ no; it may be the pending amend NOI\flNA TIONS ment, and I do not know that I shall make any objection Executive nominations received by the Senate April 29 to it, but I should like to reserve the right to do so. (legislative day of Apr. 24), 1936 Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for the purpose of permitting me to send up some amendments DIPLOMATIC AND FOREIGN SERVICE which I desire to offer and which I should like to have The following-named Foreign Service officers and consuls printed in pursuance of the suggestion made? general to be also secretaries in the Diplomatic Service of Mr. ROBINSON. Certainly. the United States of America: Mr. AUSTIN. I send to the desk certain amendments to Robert Frazer, of Pennsylvania. the pending bill Douglas Jenkins, of South Carolina. 6352 _CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE APRIL 29 Arthur Garrels, of Missouri: Charlie M. Seargeant to be postmaster at Manhattan Charles M. Hathaway, Jr., of Pennsylvania. Beach, Calif., in place of E. V. Wahlberg. Incumbent's com Thomas D. Bowman, of Missouri. mission expired January 26, 1936. Arthur C. Frost, of Massachusetts. Talbot Bielefeldt to be postmaster at Placentia, Calif., in Philip Holland, of Tennessee. place of S.D. Abbott. Incumbent's commission expired Jan Charles L. Hoover, of Missouri. uary 26, 1936. Walter A. Adams, of South Carolina. George H. German to be postmaster at Port Chicago, Calif., Joseph W. Ballantine, of Massachusetts. in place of H. C. Dybo. Incumbent's commission expired Charles R. Cameron, of New York. April 12, 1936. Monnett B. Davis, of Colorado. Noah A. Stump to be postmaster at Rosemead, Calif., in Lowell C. Pinkerton, of Missouri place of F. E. Quirk. Incumbent's commission expired March Kenneth S. Patton, of Virginia. 29, 1936. The following-named Foreign Service officers and secre Carl A. Romer to be postmaster at San Juan Capistrano, taries in the Diplomatic Service to be also consuls general Calif., in place of M. E. Forster. Incumbent's commission of the United States of America: expires June 1, 1936. Ray Atherton, of illinois. Irene C. Witmer to be postmaster at Solana Beach, Calif., Ferdinand L. Mayer, of Indiana. in place of A. E. Waits. Incumbent's commission expired G. Howland Shaw, of Massachusetts. January 9, 1936. Alexander C. Kirk, of illinois. Marvin 0. Drake to be postmaster at Terra Bella, Calif., in Edwin C. Wilson, of Florida. · place of E. A. Reeves. Incumbent's commission expired Jan Louis Sussdorff, Jr., of New York. uary 9, 1936. Hallett Johnson, of New Jersey. Sam H. Long to be postmaster at Tustin, Calif., in place Herschel V. Johnson, of North Carolina. of C. L. Phiney. Incumbent's commission expired January 9, Edward L. Reed, of Pennsylvania. 1936. PuBLIC HEALTH SERVICE COLORADO The following-named assistant dental surgeons . Walter F. Herrling to be postmaster at Skaneateles, N. Y., TENNESSEE . in place of W. A. Hilton. Incumbent's commission expired George P. Brummitt to be postmaster at Gleason, Tenn., in February 17, 1936. place of J. v. Allmon, resigned. - NORTH CAROLINA Hundley Broyles Welch to be postmaster at Pickwick Dam; John G. Kennedy to be postmaster at Beulaville, N. C. Tenn. Office became Presidential April 1, 1936. Office became Presidential July 1, 1935. Charles Atkins Boone to be postmaster at Trenton, Tenn., Helen H. Leggett to be postmaster at Scotland Neck, N.C., in place of C. L. Fairless. Incumbent's commission exph·ed in place of A. L. Purrington. Incumbent's commission ex February 5, 1936. pired February 24, 1936. - TEXAS Samuel R. Fowle, Jr., to be postmaster at Washington, N.C., James Harley Dallas to be postmaster at Brownfield, Tex., in place of J~ q. Meekins, Jr., resigned. - in place of L. T. Toone. Incumbent's commission expires OHIO April 29, 1936. · ' · Stanley Lawrence·smith to be postmaster at Ashville, Ohio, Robert 0. Rockwood to · be postmaster at Wharton, Tex .• in place of H. J. Snyder. Inctimbent's commission expired in place of J9e Burger, Sr. Incumbent's commission expired January· 7, 1936. February 5, 1936. Fred J. Tank to be postmaster at Elmore, Ohio, in· place of UTAH J. W. Darling. Incumbent's ~ommission expired January T, Gilbert L; Janson to be postmaster at Cedar City, Utah, in 1936. - . - place .of H. H. L_unt. Incumbent's co~ission expired Jan Frieda M. Lappen to be postfnaster at Laurelville, Ohio, uary 26, 1936-.. in place of H. E. 'Woolson. Incumbent's commission exph·es Eugene C. Gibson to be postmaster at Helper, Utah, in June ·u, 1936. · · · · place of R. H. Jacobshagen, removed. Frank A. Griebling to be postmaster at Lexington, Ohio, VERMONT in place of G. H. Maxwell. Incumbent's commission expires Irene M. Vaughn to be postmaster at Arlington, Vt., in May 23, 1936. · _ place of M. P. Cullinan. Incumbent's commission expired Fred E .. Surgen to be postmaster at Murray City, Ohio, December 20, ·1934. in place of ·F. M. MlU'J}hy. Incumbent's commission expires Albert A. LaFrance- to be postmaster at Derby Line, Vt., in June 1, H~3&. ·· . · place of P. F. Hunt. Incumbent's commission expires June Clyde L. Weiser to be postmaster at Orrville, Ohio, . in 11, 1936. place ot ·Alfred Jenny; IncumbentJs commission · expired Helen F. McKenna. to be postmaster at Norwich, Vt., in April 12, 1936. place of L. F. Merrill. Incumbent's commission expired Jan Orion W. K~rschner to be. postmaster at Trotwood, Ohio, uary 28, 1935. in place of- R .. M. Swank. Incumbent's commission expired Hayden E. Whiting to be postmaster at Sheldon Springs, January 7, 1936. Vt., in place of S. P. Dow. Incumbent's commission expired George W. Kinzey to be postmaster at Wayne, Ohio, in place of C. E. Dowling. Incumbent's commission expired April 12, 1936. . Thomas H. Barry to be postmaster at Waterbury, Vt., in February 20, 1935. place of G. E. Carpenter. Incumbent's commission expired Michael A. Delsantro to be postmaster at Willoughby, Ohio, in place of J. W. Hencke. Incumbent's commission January 7, 1936. expired February 20, 1935. VIRGINIA Martin Rosenbaum to be postmaster at Glade Spring, Va., OKLAHOMA in place of W. G. Faris. Incumbent's commission expU:ed · Elizabeth R. Cunningham to be postmaster at Custer, February 4, 1935. Okla .. , in place of D. E. McKenney. Incumbent's commis G. Frederick Switzer to be postmaster at Harrisonburg, Va., sion expired February 5, 1936 .. in place of C. A. Hammer. Incumbent's commission expired Virgil A. Little to be postmaster at Goodwell, Okla., in March 10, 1936. place of L. F. McDonald. Incumbent's commission expired William T. Roberts to be postmaster at Nassawadox, Va., February 5, 1936. in place of J. J. Ward. Incumbent's commission expires May Bentley R. Jones to· be postmaster at Stilwell, Okla., in 10, 1936. place of J. B. Cox. Incumbent's commiSsion expires June Levi E. Stephenson to be postmaster at Wakefield, Va., in 1, 1936. place of E. · W. Brittle. Incumbent's commission expired Thomas F. Lynch to be postmaster at Stroud, Okla., in March 10, 1936. place of L. G. Scott. Incumbent's commission expires May WASHINGTON 3, 1936. Frank Bryan Collins to be postmaster at Camas, Wash., in Julius L. Foster to be postmaster at Taloga, Okla., in place of D. M. Mitchell. Incumbent's commission expired place of George Logsdon. Incumbent's commission expired January 8, 1936. February 5, 1936. William G. Meneice to be postmaster at Carson, Wash., in Sam Cunningham to be postmaster at Wellston, Okla., place of W. G. Meneice. Incumbent's commission expired in place of Fred Godard. Incumbent's "commission expires April 14, 1936. May 3, 1936. Renee Houchen to be postmaster at Cathlamet, Wash., in OREGON place of E. F. Head. Incumbent's commission expired Febru Inez c. Givan to be postmaster at Merrill, Oreg .• in place ary 5, 1936. of E. F. Merritt, resigned. Ralph Gildea to be postmaster at Garfield, Wash., in place PUERTO RICO of H. P. Fisher. Incumbent's commission expired January Augustin Carbonell to be postmaster at Caguas, P. R., in 28, 1936. place of Augustin Carbonell. Incumbent's commission ex Edna Smith to be postmaster at La Center, Wash., in place pired February 9, 1936. of E. R. Anderson. Incumbent's commission expired January RHODE ISLAND 28, 1936. Quentin D. Mitchell to be postmaster at Long Beach, Catherine Louise Davis to be postmaster at Portsmouth, Wash., in place of F. P. Cooper. Incumbent's commission R.I., in place of C. M. Green. Incumbent's commission ex expired February 5, 1936. pired February 3, 1936. Milton E. Waste to be postmaster at Morton, Wash., in SOUTH DAKOTA place of Zelda Ellis. Incumbent's commission expired Janu Frank B. Kargleder to be postmaster at White Rock, ary 8, 1936. s. Dak., in place of C. G. Kuentzel. Incumbent's commission Honora M. Connor to be postmaster at South Bend, Wash., expired April 27, 1936. in place of W. P. Cressy, resigned. LXXX--402 6356 CONGRESSIONAL RECO.RD-HOUSE APRIL 2~ WEST VIRGINIA "An act for the relief of certain officers and employees of Anna F. Cole to be postmaster at Hundred, W. Va., in the Foreign Service of the United States who,. while in the place of A. F. Simms. Incumbent's commission expired Feb course of their respective duties, suffered losses of personal ruary 9, 1936. property by reason of catastrophes of nature", requests a Richard Ivan Hargett to be postmaster at Kimberly, conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the W.Va., in place of U. A. Cobb, resigned. two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. PITTMAN, Mr. BULK Bartholomew D. Eagan to be postmaster at Ronceverte, LEY, and Mr. WHITE to be the conferees on the part of the W.Va., in place of I. W. Folden. Incumbent's commission Senate. expired January 7, 1936. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AIRPORT COMMISSION WISCONSIN The SPEAKER announced, pursuant to provisions of Pub lic Law No. 529, Seventy-fourth Congress, the appointment Walter F. Netzel to be postmaster at Crandon, Wis., in of Mrs. NORTON, Mr. NICHOLS, and Mr. COLE of New York as place of J. F. Lambert. Incumbent's commission expired members of the District of Columbia Airport Commission. January 18, 1936. WHY PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT SHOULD BE REELECTED Clara A. E. Manion to be postmaster at Oregon, WIS., in place of N. I. McGill. Incumbent's commission expired Feb Mr. DIES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to ex ruary 10, 1936. tend my remarks in the RECORD by inserting a radio speech Henry F. Schumacher to -be postmaster at Stoughton, Wis., made by me. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the in place of L. C. Currier, deceased. gentleman from Texas? WYOMING There was no objection. Arthur W. Crawford to be postmaster at Guernsey, Wyo., Mr. DIES. Mr. Speaker, under the leave to extend my in place of A. W. Crawford. Incumbent's commission ex remarks in the REcoRD, I include the following address which pired January 9, 1936. I delivered over the radio on April 24: I recall vividly the occasion of President Roosevelt's inauguration. It was a gloomy day in more respects than one. Thousands o:t CONFIRMATION people were standing in front of the inaugural stand awaiting the Executive nomination confirmed the Senate arrival of a new leader. Despair was written upon every !ace. by April 29 Fear gripped every heart. Many thought that we were on the (legislative day of Apr. 24), 1936 verge of economic collapse. The banks were closed. Terrifl.ed PosTMASTER people were standing in line in front of the Treasury to convert their paper currency into gold. Mllllons were jobless and hungry, NORTH DAKOTA while other millions faced bankruptcy and foreclosures. Homes and farms were being sold under the hammer. Ag~"icultural prod· Winnifred D. Flaten, Edinburg. ucts glutted the market, and the price of cotton was 5 cents a pound. Old age faced want and poverty without a single ray of hope. Youth saw the doors of opportunity closed to ambition and energy. When President Roosevelt faced that despairing multitude HOUSE OF REP~ESENTATIVES who symbolized the majority of our people he knew what was in their hearts and minds. Then he did something I shall never WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 1936 forget to my dying day. He smiled. If ever a nation needed a. The House met at 12 o'clock noon. smile it was on that gloomy day. Not only did he smile but he spoke with cheerfulness and optimism. That smile and cheerful· The Chaplain, Rev. James Shera Montgomery, D. D., ness melted the icy fear that had paralyzed the hearts of a. offered the folloWing prayer: stricken people. When we Democrats began the difficult task of recovery we had 0 Thou who art the King of kings and the Lord of lords, before us a map which outlined the course of action and policy. we praise Thee that the rich and poor, the high and lowly, That map was the party platform. No one can deny that we the good and bad may call Thee "Father." Thou, whose made a sincere effort to steer the ship of state according to that chart. We reorganized the banking structure upon a sound basis. essence is love, to whom discord and sin are abhorrent, teach We passed a drastic economy bill which provoked widespread op us the art of brotherly love. May we reflect it in the home, position. But it soon became apparent to every thinking man in society, and in the affairs of state. We thank Thee for that if we adhered to that chartered course we would run head long into a hurricane that would smash the ship of state against the pure, noble, and self-sacrificing life of Jesus of Nazareth. the rocks. We pray Thee that we may be brought in contact with the To those who condemn us for temporarily departing from that life-giving currents of His marvelous life. That our lives chart, may I propose this question: Suppose that the captain of a. may be obedient and Godlike, we entreat Thee to make us ship set sail upon a charted course and after proceeding for 100 miles received warning of a hurricane directly ahead, would it not susceptible to His holy will, and Thine shall be the glory be his duty to deviate from the original course to save the ship and forever. Amen. all on board? That is exactly what we did. We received the most serious storm warning. The barometer was falling steadlly; the The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and gale was increasing with alarming rapidity. Even a landlubber approved. could interpret the signs of the approa.chtng tempest. Unemploy ment was rapidly increasing. Food riots were breaking out. More MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE and more homes and farms were going under the hammer. The A message from the Senate, by Mr. Horne, its enrolling American dollar was attacked by all foreign currencies. Export trade was vanishing. General paralysis was spreading over the clerk, announced that the Senate had passed a bill and con entire economic body. To aggravate this. situation fire broke out current resolution of the folloWing titles, in which the concur on the ship of state. At this critical juncture President Roosevelt rence of the House is requested: acted with decision and promptness. He steered the ship as far from the troubled . area as possible and ordered vigorous and direct S. 2883. An act to provide for the further development of measures to extinguish the fire. Not a human soul on board pro vocational education in the several States and Territories; tested these orders or suggested a substitute. The majority of the and passengers volunteered their assistance to extinguish the fire. Some of them, however~ hid in the hold of the ship or locked themselves S. Con. Res. 37. Concurrent resolution authorizing the print in their staterooms. The President issued a series of emergency ing of additional copies of each part of Senate Report No. orders in rapid-fire succession. First, he ordered that the hungry 944, concerning the manufacture and sale of arms and other be fed and the naked clothed and that Government jobs be created for as many as possible. Then we stopped the raids upon the gold war munitions. supply by doing what Europe had already done-by going off the The message also announced that the Senate agrees to gold standard and devaluing the gold dollar. We extended the the amendments of the House to the amendment of the principle of the R. F. C. loans to include home and farm owners, With the result that m1llions of homes were saved from the Senate to the bill