seems to be highly undesirable. The committee heard no witnesses recommending such practice. It seems that ample fluid milk is produced in the Washington milkshed to serve the needs of the consumers, and apparently what is needed is not more milk, but a better control over that which is produced in this area. It was stated for the record that if a bill was passed opening the market to all producers, one distributor would sell fluid milk at 12 cents a quart and still maintain the present price to his local producers. Yet when invited to do so, he declined to take the witness stand and explain the plan by which he expected to accomplish such desirable results. It should be accepted without comment that such claims are without substance and do not merit the consideration of intelligent people. It is also worthy of mention that the witnesses who thought the local regulations should be relaxed because of their capacity to create trade barriers found localities in their own States with similar requirements which they were unwilling to remove. Manifestly, the health of the consuming public is of transcending importance, certainly far more so than the capacity or lack of capacity of certain health requirements to create so-called trade barriers. It must be fairly conceded that other States than those within the Washington milkshed are capable of and do produce a quality of milk and cream equivalent to, if not better than that produced in this area. However, it must also be conceded that that grade of milk or cream may never reach the District of Columbia and only that which is unacceptable to the people of the jurisdiction in which it is produced will find its way into the District of Columbia to be sold to the unsuspecting public. Then, too, it is not beyond the realm of probability that the large dairy combines will, once the market is opened, start moving their accumulated surplus into the District of Columbia to be disposed of as they see fit. The damaging effect of such result is too obvious to admit of doubt, and certainly cannot appeal to those who are honestly and sincerely endeavoring to assist and yet protect the consumers of the District of Columbia or any other jurisdiction. There seems to be no basis in law or fact for a wholesale relaxation of the local health requirements in order to open the market, and the "rule of reason" demands otherwise. The secretary-manager of the Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Association testified to the efforts on the part of the association to track down the violations of the law, and stated that the association had spent the sum of $46,781.75 from 1935 to 1939 in an effort to prevent this practice, as it was costing the producers in the Washington milkshed approximately $1,000 per day. The evidence disclosed that these unlawful practices were being engaged in even after the hearings began and there is nothing in the record to indicate that they have ceased. It is interesting to note that after the seizure of unlicensed cream at the Embassy Dairy, the Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Association sales in April were increased approximately 6,000 gallons over the month of February, showing that because of the seizure, licensed milk and cream were being used. THE PROPRIETY AND ADVISABILITY OF ADMITTING MILK AND CREAM from DISTANT SOURCES Quite a number of witnesses were heard from States beyond the territorial limits of the Washington milkshed. These States specifically represented were Indiana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. It appears that for economic reasons only those witnesses from Indiana and Wisconsin were in favor of relaxing the present health regulations or "opening the market," as it is called, to admit milk and cream from any source, and they testified that they were interested only in shipping cream into the District of Columbia and not milk because of its volume. The witnesses were eminently fair in their testimony and stated it to be their opinion that their cream was produced under regulations as effective as those of the District of Columbia, and that the consumer of the District of Columbia had nothing to fear by accepting the certificates of their local health officers. However, at least one witness felt that it would be safe only if the rules require inspection upon arrival to ascertain whether the cream had become contaminated in transit. CONCLUSION Your committee finds that in the main the milk supply of the District of Columbia comes from sources licensed by the health department of the District of Columbia which, by virtue of the health regulations, compare favorably with any in the United States; that the milk consumed likewise is of a high order and is comparable to that of any other jurisdiction. There was abundant evidence of the H. Repts., 76-1, vol. 564 importation of unlicensed cream which found its way into fluid consumption, and your committee recommends that steps be taken to prevent this practice, which is condemned by the act of 1925. Your committee also protests against the practice of reconstructing butter into cream for fluid consumption. Both of these practices are capable of and may have a very serious effect upon the consumers. Under present conditions your committee finds that the distributors, and particularly the larger ones, are the sole beneficiaries of the production and sale of milk. The consumer is paying a price as high, if not higher, than the price which obtains in a majority of the cities in the United States, but the individual who produces the milk is barely able to exist. This state of facts impels the conclusion that the spread between what the producer receives and what the consumer pays is far too great and more than necessary to insure to the distributor a fair return on the investment. The producer seems to be getting a good price for his milk and still is unable to show a profit. It is very possible that his costs of production are too high or he is not getting the best results from his herds. Your committee recommends remedial legislation to correct the present unsatisfactory conditions. О JOE B. BATES, WILLIAM D. BYRON, GEORGE M. RUBY JULY 12, 1939.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. HARNESS, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 1723] The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1723) to correct the military record of George M. Ruby, having considered the same, submit the following report thereon with the recommendation that it do pass with the following amendment: Add the following proviso: That no bounty, back pay, pension, or allowances, shall be held to have accrued prior to the passage of this Act. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of War to correct the records of the War Department to show that Ruby was honorably discharged as a private, Company D, Thirteenth Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry, on August 27, 1864, at New Haven, Conn. Briefly, his Civil War service was: (1) Enrolled November 9, 1861; discharged February 7, 1864, honorably. (2) Reenlisted February 8, 1864; deserted August 27, 1864. (3) Enrolled September 14, 1864, under name of Charles Miner; discharged June 20, 1865, honorably, as corporal. It is with reference to his second enlistment, from which he deserted, that Ruby desires the records be changed to show an honorable discharge. He claims that he was induced to reenlist as a veteran by promise of the usual veteran's furlough of 30 days; that furlough, however, was denied him for several months, but finally granted him and he returned home; that while at home he believed an injustice had been done him, and upon advice of his mother he overstayed his furlough and, fearing arrest, he enlisted under an assumed name and in a different regiment. Previously he has made application for removal of the charge of desertion and for an honorable discharge, which was denied by the War Department for the reason that his third enlistment in the First New York Artillery appears to have been made for the purpose of obtaining a bounty which he would not have received had he remained with his proper regiment, the Thirteenth Connecticut Infantry. Since there is no definite record to show that Ruby deserted and enlisted again for the purpose of obtaining a bounty as claimed by the War Department, the committee is of the opinion that this veteran, in view of his other honorable service, should have his record changed to show him as having been honorably discharged from the Thirteenth Connecticut Infantry. The War Department's report on S. 1723, under date of March 30, 1939, is as follows: Hon. MORRIS SHEPPARD, Chairman, Committee on Military Affairs, United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR SHEPPARD: This is in further reference to your letter of March 9, 1939, in which you request to be furnished with the views of the War Department relative to S. 1723, Seventy-sixth Congress, first session, a bill to correct the military record of George M. Ruby. Your consideration is invited to the enclosed statement of service of the former soldier prepared in the office of The Adjutant General, and containing all pertinent data concerning the man which appear of record in the War Department. The bill under consideration, S. 1723, proposes by its terms that the Secretary of War is authorized and directed to correct the records of the War Department to show that George M. Ruby was honorably discharged as a private o Company D, Thirteenth Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry, on August 27, 1864, at New Haven, Conn. Examination of the statement of service prepared in the office of The Adjutant General, from the official records, reveals a history of desertion of George M. Ruby as a private of Company D, Thirteenth Connecticut Infantry on August 27, 1864, and his subsequent enlistment under the name of Charles Miner on September 14, 1864, as a private of Battery K, First New York Light Artillery, in violation of the twenty-second article of war. The case of this soldier has heretofore been considered under the so-called Desertion Act of March 2, 1889 (25 Stat. L. 869), but is not covered by any provisions of that act. Congress clearly indicated the extent to which relief should be granted in such cases. The soldier failed to substantiate his claim under the provisions of that act, and the War Department does not look with favor upon special legislation for the purpose of granting relief in individual cases, such as the one now under discussion, not covered by the general law. The enactment of this bill into law would, in effect, constitute a legislative pardon for a man whose status is now that of a deserter and would single out for preferential treatment one individual of a large but undetermined number of former soldiers whose status is identical with that of the man now under discussion. Moreover, the enactment would place him on a par with those who, during a period of war, rendered services all of which were honest and faithful and whose discharges were honorable. Nothing has been found of record in this case to indicate that any injustice has been done. The proposed legislation seemingly has for its object the granting of certain benefits and privileges now denied under existing law. So far as this Department is able to ascertain there is no justification for the legislation and no merit in the claim for special favors or consideration. It is noted that the bill authorizes and directs the Secretary of War to correct the records of the War Department to show that George M. Ruby was honorably discharged as a private of Company D, Thirteenth Connecticut Volunteer Infantry on August 27, 1864, whereas the records show that he deserted on that date. So far as any information is in possession of the War Department, the record of George M. Ruby is already correct, consequently the bill if enacted into law would involve the falsification of historical records which should be kept inviolate. The War Department has opposed uniformly the enactment of legislation that would effect an alteration or amendment of the records in its custody, as to do so would destroy their value. Should a change be authorized in one instance, in justice it could not be denied in others, and none of the records made at the time by officials whose duty is was to make them would be immune from change upon the assertion of interested parties. For the foregoing reasons the War Department strongly recommends that the bill be not favorably considered. The absence of a proviso in the pending bill "That no bounty, back pay, pension, or allowances, shall be held to have accrued prior to the passage of this act" is also noted. It has been the almost invariable custom of Congress not to enact a private bill of this nature which would result in conferring any right to make pecuniary demands on the Government that had already accrued to honorably separated soldiers. It would be unusual to omit the proviso from the special bill under consideration. Sincerely yours, LOUIS JOHNSON, Acting Secretary of War. CASE OF GEORGE M. RUBY, PRIVATE, COMPANY D, THIRTEENTH CONNECTICUT WAR DEPARTMENT, The honorable the SECRETARY OF WAR.: He was again enrolled and mustered into service under the name of Charles Miner, September 14, 1864, at Schenectady, N. Y., as a private of Battery K, First New York Light Artillery, to serve for 1 year; was promoted to corporal November 26, 1864, and was mustered out and honorably discharged as a corporal, June 20, 1865, at Elmira, N. Y. This enlistment was in violation of the twentysecond article of war. Applying for removal of the charge of desertion and for an honorable discharge, this soldier testified in October 1890 that he was furloughed for 30 days and overstayed his furlough some 3 or 4 weeks, then reenlisted in Company K, First New York Artillery, under the name of Charles Miner and was discharged June 20, 1865; that he was not reenlisted for the purpose of securing a higher bounty. He testified further in October 1892 that while serving with his regiment in the State of Louisiana on or about the 8th day of February 1864, he was induced to reenlist as a veteran by a promise of the usual veteran's furlough of 30 days, but although often demanding said furlough it was denied him and he was kept in the service for many months, after which time he was granted a furlough to return to his home; then smarting under the injustice done him and with the advice of his mother he stayed beyond the time allowed by his furlough, and fearing arrest from the consequences of his act, he enlisted on or about the 14th day of September 1864 under the assumed name of Charles Miner, as a private in Company K, First Regiment Artillery, New York State Volunteers, from which he was honorably discharged as a corporal on the 20th day of June 1865 at Elmira, N. Y.; that he would gladly have returned to his regiment under the President's proclamation but was prevented from doing so by reason of his serving at the time in the First Regiment Artillery, New York State Volunteers. Upon this presentation of the case his application for removal of the charge of desertion and for an honorable discharge was denied, and now stands denied, for the reason that his enlistment in the First New York Artillery appears to have been made for the purpose of obtaining a bounty which he would not have received had he remained with the Thirteenth Connecticut Infantry, and because his case is not covered by any other provision of the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889 (25 Stat. L. 839), which is the law in force governing the subject of removal of charges of desertion from the records of soldiers of the Civil War and the War with Mexico. The medical records show that George M. Ruby was treated as follows: From (date not shown) to February 2, 1862, measles; November 14 to December 1, 1862, |