with one of these tins that he spoke about some one drinking. Possibly some one could, but I do not know how.

Mr. RIGNEY. He would not drink much of it. He would likely be stopped pretty quickly.

Mr. GovE. He would likely be dead if he did.

Mr. RIGNEY. He would probably get one drink and stop.

Mr. GovE. So far as Senator Frazier speaking of the rural-route man being able to telephone to the country store keeper and ask him to bring out a package, I believe that the Post Office Department would agree without question to handle this matter on rural routes, because the rural carrier could handle the matter and it could be readily kept separate from other mail matter and thereby be handled in such manner that there would be no danger of contamination; but on the condition that it be limited to handling on rural routes and not be handled on the railroad or in other forms of transportation. In that way, on the rural routes, I believe that it might be handled with perfect safety.

The CHAIRMAN. What would be your idea of legislation? That the Postmaster General should be permitted to make regulations for transportation of this class of business when originating at the point of origin of a rural route?

Mr. GovE. Something to that effect.

Mr. RIGNEY. May I say something right there?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. RIGNEY. There are several States with laws which would prevent the operation of anything of the kind. I mention California and Oregon; they have laws to prevent the sale of any of these articles except by licensed pharmacists. You might have at the head of some rural route a town where there is no licensed pharmacist. In California we have to register formaldehyde with the State before we can sell it there.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you obviate that by an original shipment from Chicago?

Mr. RIGNEY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you would override the laws of the States. Mr. RIGNEY. Oh, no; I did not mean that. We have the right to sell to the consumer, as manufacturers, but the general storekeeper in the town out west can not sell formaldehyde. The farmer, under the laws of several States, can buy direct from the manufacturer, but the general storekeeper can not handle it. The same applies to nearly every one of the insecticides that are sold.

Senator FRAZIER. I should like to ask if the present provision in the law in regard to transmission in the mails from manufacturer to licensed physicians, surgeons, dentists, druggists, and veterinarians, is availed of now to some extent.

Mr. GovE. Unquestionably. But I should like to call your attention to the fact that that proviso states: " which are not outwardly or of their own force dangerous or injurious to life, health, or property."

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gove, up to the time of the administration of Postmaster General Wanamaker no liquids were carried through the mails at all.

Mr. Gove. I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. Did not he devise the regulations which would permit that sort of container?

Mr. GovE. Perhaps Mr. Shore can answer that question.

The CHAIRMAN. I will ask him when he comes to the stand.

Mr. GOVE. I have nothing further unless there are some questions. The CHAIRMAN. Has any member of the committee any questions to ask Mr. Gove? [After a pause.] We thank you very much. Mr. Shore, the committee will hear you now.

STATEMENT OF HENRY A. SHORE, CHIEF CLERK, DIVISION OF RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me address a question to you right here: It was under the administration of Postmaster General Wanamaker that liquids were first admitted to the mails, was it not?

Mr. ŜHORE. About that time.

The CHAIRMAN. That was arranged by regulation as to the character of the container.

Mr. SHORE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. There was no legislation as to that?

Mr. SHORE. No, sir; no legislation was required as I understand. The CHAIRMAN. Therefore, since no bill was introduced in Congress the Post Office Department had no reason to oppose it, was that it?

Mr. SHORE. No; the department never allowed much of that kind of stuff in the mail. It was very severely restricted, but it was handled. But here comes a criminal statute that I think was passed since that time, which you propose to amend. This is a comparatively new law.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; enacted in 1909.

Mr. SHORE. Something like that. It was long after Mr. Wanamaker's time. The trouble with having poisons in the mail as we see it is, when you handle poisons in the same bag with the foodstuffs of the people, they do not like it. You would not want your food to be handled in that manner. I would not. I would not get any food through the mail if you were going to send poisons in the mails promiscuously.

The CHAIRMAN. Foodstuffs, especially of a perishable nature, are now carried in the parcel post?

Mr. SHORE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do they carry them under the special handling stamp to any extent?

Mr. SHORE. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Why not?

Mr. SHORE. Because it is too expensive, to begin with. Twentyfive cents is more than the goods are worth sometimes.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but the time element has been greatly stressed here this morning.

Mr. SHORE. Well, people do not use it very much anyhow.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the Post Office Department made any great effort to popularize that stamp, to make it known to the people using

the mails?

Mr. SHORE. To a considerable extent along that line, yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I had an experience right under the nose of the Post Office Department a short time ago. Wishing to send a package to a mid-Western State, I pointed out to the dealer that a special handling stamp would get it there immediately, the dealer having indicated it would be somewhat delayed in transmission. He never had heard of a special handling stamp, and yet he lives right here in Washington, and he said he could use that stamp probably 15 times a week for customers who wanted quick delivery. I wondered why a man right here in Washington, and one in business more particularly, did not know about it.

Mr. SHORE. Evidently he does not read the newspapers.

Mr. RIGNEY. May I ask Mr. Shore a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. RIGNEY. Mr. Shore, is it not a fact that the most perishable foodstuffs shipped by parcel post are travelling from the farm to the populous centers instead of from the populous centers to the farms?

Mr. SHORE. Yes; and I think that is because there is not so much foodstuffs shipped from the city to the country.

Mr. RIGNEY. It is in the opposite direction?

Mr. SHORE. Yes.

Senator FRAZIER. I want to say that I was in a branch post office here before Christmas, and I think the force engaged there would have welcomed some good disinfectant.

Mr. RIGNEY. A little formaldehyde would have been a good thing in there, no doubt.

Mr. SHORE. The Department of Agriculture tells us that formaldehyde is dangerous of its own force. That is, that it would cause death. And I understand that hydrocyanic acid gas would kill somebody if it got loose.

The CHAIRMAN. The Acting Secretary of Agriculture is on record as favoring this legislation.

Mr. SHORE. I know, and we all favor anything that will get rid of the really harmful insects. That is the point that he looks at it from.

Senator FRAZIER. That will have to be tested out.

Mr. RIGNEY. I should like to have the privilege of bringing a can of formaldehyde and opening it in this room.

Mr. SHORE. If you put in some cyanide you would get out quickly. Paris green is most deadly if it escapes from a package. It is a powder.

Mr. RIGNEY. Hydrocyanic acid gas is shipped in a diluted form by express now. We would not expect to ship hydrocyanic acid gas through the mail because it is put in special sealed containers with special valves on it.

Mr. SHORE. Any of these preparations would be dangerous to handle. The express people handle packages differently from us; they handle packages separately and we handle them in bags. You would not want your clothing to come in touch with poison, for in spite of all the care you can take, accidents do happen. There is another feature that occurred to me while the gentlemen were speaking and that is that this law would come in conflict with local poison laws. Nearly every State has a local poison law, and they

are all different. If we ship these poisons in the mail we will be in the same shape we are in if shipping pistols-we would have the States and cities kicking.

Mr. RIGNEY. Might I answer that we have looked up the law of every State, and with our packages we comply with the law.

Mr. SHORE. And municipalities have poison laws and there are not two alike.

Mr. RIGNEY. Louisiana has a law that would prevent us from shipping into that State by mail.

Mr. SHORE. Some of these insecticides and germicides are most deadly, such as mercury and arsenic-the most efficient of them are the more poisonous. If you are going to handle them in the mails there is no reason on earth why we should not handle rat poison and any other poison anyone wants to ship.

The CHAIRMAN. That has already been suggested here this morning as another amendment.

Mr. SHORE. Yes. I think if the facts were known there would be more objection from the public than you think of. In fact, so far as we know at the department, and we have had this question before us for years, there have never been any requests from the public to ship insecticides and germicides. The requests come from the manufacturers, who want to do a mail-order business. That is about the size of it. Now, the public never complain that they can not get insecticides through the mails. They can get them from somebody without any difficulty, it is quite evident. We have never heard any complaint about it.

Mr. CRASS. I will answer that by saying that the manufacturers are the ones that get the complaints from the public, and we tell them it can not be done.

Mr. SHORE. Well, the public knows how to complain to the Post Office Department about other matters, everything else.

The CHAIRMAN. And to this committee.

Mr. RIGNEY. I should like to have go on the record that it is the manufacturers of these insecticides that have been and are educating the public to the use of them to their benefit, and not the Post Office Department.

Mr. TIERNEY. That matter was submitted at one of our conferences. The man representing a farmers' organization said: I am telling you now that the farmers I represent, 1,000,000 of them, very urgently desire this, and if you want 10,000 telegrams and letters to come in here, I will get them for you.

Mr. SHORE. That would be propaganda.

Mr. TIERNEY. That was a representative of one of the farmers' organizations. Another representative who appeared at a hearing before the Third Assistant Postmaster General said he represented an organization of 660,000 farmers who wanted this, and that if they wanted propaganda, if they wanted letters and telegrams, they would be sent in.

Mr. SHORE. I am speaking of what might be considered a spontaneous complaint. We have complaints from manufacturers and dealers who want to ship this stuff in the mails, but we have never had a single solitary request from any farmer.

Mr. TIERNEY. There is nothing improper for them to make a request, is there?

Mr. SHORE. None at all, nor for the farmer.

Mr. TIERNEY. He has done it to the manufacturer.

Mr. SHORE. He has not made any complaint to us.

Mr. TIERNEY. Two representatives have made request of you, and you heard them because you were present?

Mr. RIGNEY. Yes, Mr. Shore was present when the gentlemen made the statement, and I heard them myself.

Mr. SHORE. Certainly, I was there. But I feel, and the Postmaster General is on record as feeling that it would be detrimental to the interests of the department and the public to permit shipments of poisons in the mail.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions to be asked, Mr. Shore? [After a pause.] If there is nothing further, we thank you, Mr. Shore.

Mr. SHORE. I do not believe I have anything more to say.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is very much obliged to you, gentlemen.

Mr. TIERNEY. We do not contend this material that we are asking may be sent through the mail is nonpoisonous. Of course it is poisonous. But the point we make is that our containers will guard against any contact of the contents of the package with any other material, and unless we are given an opportunity to demonstrate that, how in the world can anybody say that this or that result is assuredly going to take place? We show in the cases we are presenting, and the shipments that have been made, that satisfactory results have been attained and we know that the same results will come if we transmit these materials through the mails. In any event the specifications for the packages are right up to the Postmaster General. He can say what may and what may not go through the mails.

Mr. SHORE. AS I understand the provision proposed here wold practically put it up to the Postmaster General to get a proper kind of container and describe it, make the specifications for it, that he must do it.

Mr. TIERNEY. He has the authority to reject any specifications submitted, has he not?

Mr. SHORE. But he would be required to get it according to that provision.

(Letters of T. C. Atkeson, Washington, representative of the National Grange, Patrons of Husbandry, and Chester H. Gray, of the American Farm Bureau Federation to the chairman of the committee on post offices and post roads, are here printed in full, as follows:)

Hon. GEORGE H. MOSES,

NATIONAL GRANGE, PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY,
Washington, D. C., March 6, 1926.

Chairman Senate Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads,
Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR MOSES: We had notice of the hearing on the amendment to the general Post Office bill providing that insecticides, fungicides, and germicides might be given mailing privileges when packed and shipped in containers which met the approval of the Postmaster General, but were unable to be represented because of engagements before other committees.

87582-26- -3