lawyers who handled the bankruptcy cases and several of them have told me that the most unfortunate thing in the world was the fact that their company had availed itself of the RFC loans, because it merely prolonged the evil day.

Mr. ALBERT. What about the land grants made to the railroads during their early development, do you think that was bad policy on the part of the Government?

Mr. SOUBY. I have never thought so, and one reason for that is something that most people overlook; that is that the grants to the lines had a definite quid pro quo attached to them. They were not outright gifts. Generally they required the railroads to handle the Government freight and passengers at certain rates, some of them absolutely free. There were one or two instances where they were construed as requiring the free transportation of Government property and persons. But they were generally construed as merely giving the Government a right to operate its own vehicles over the road, similar to some of the old highway land grants, and the courts worked that out to a point where it represented the Government paying about half rate on its traffic. You know we went through that long history in obtaining a repeal of the land-grant provisions requiring reduced rate transportation.

Mr. GRANGER. You used to work for the Union Pacific Railroad, did you not?

Mr. SOUBY. I was with the Union Pacific a great many years. Mr. GRANGER. It is one of the railroads that has always operated at a profit, as I remember it.

Mr. SOUBY. Since they went through receivership back in 1896. Mr. HILL. The Union Pacific has gone through receivership several different times, as I remember it.

Mr. SOUBY. I think only once, Mr. Hill. It was 1896, back in that period.

Mr. GRANGER. The reason it makes a profit now is because of the grants given it by the Government for oil wells and coal mines and grazing lands.

Mr. SOUBY. I would not say that is the reason.

reason.

That is one

Mr. GRANGER. One reason it operates in the red. Mr. SOUBY. One reason for some of their exceptional prosperity. Mr. HILL. What would the land be worth if you did not have the railroad?

Mr. GRANGER. I am not saying about that. I am saying if the railroads think like this man thinks, you would not have any railroads very long.

Mr. HILL. Britain has already turned them over to the Federal Government.

Mr. HILL. You think we will take them over, the Federal Government, like Britain?

Mr. GRANGER. I think they might be forced to take them over, unless they get more business.

I

Mr. HILL. You think they are getting worse than they were. thought they were improving. We would not have Utah if we did. not have the railroads. You folks walked into Utah the first time and then decided you needed railroads.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much.

71578-50-ser. qq-16

Mr. SOUBY. Mr. Chairman, I watched the witnesses ahead of me and I thought I would profit by their unfortunate example, and not get myself into any wrangle, but I see that I am probably a very poor lawyer.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Souby.

Mr. SOUBY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Karl Loos.

STATEMENT OF KARL D. LOOS, CALIFORNIA FRUIT GROWERS EXCHANGE, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Mr. Loos. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Karl D. Loos, and I appear here in support of this bill on behalf of the California Fruit Growers Exchange, Los Angeles, and the California Fruit Exchange of Sacramento. Those are shipping organizations which ship the citrus fruit, in the case of the first, and deciduous fruits in the case of the second, of their grower members, and I think we can safely assume that they represent not only the shipper point of view, but also the grower point of view with respect to those two commodities grown in the State of California and the State of Arizona.

This subject has been pretty well covered in the hearings, and I think I can be very brief in stating our reasons for believing that public credit should be made available for improved terminal facilities, and I think that is the primary issue here, as to whether or not this bill should be approved.

The ideal market for perishable products, we must remember we are talking about perishable products, that means they have to be handled promptly and distributed fast, the ideal market is one where all of the supplies of those commodities can meet all of the buying power in a given area, and where at the same time the goods can be promptly unloaded from the conveyances, the cars, or the trucks, or the ships that have brought them to the market and promptly distributed through the wholesale and retail channels of trade to the ultimate consumer.

Now, we probably never will get the ideal market in any one place, but to accomplish as near an approach to that ideal as we can, it is essential that we get together in this market and get an agreement from all of the participants in that market and those participants are numerous and varied. They are the shippers and the growers from California and Arizona, from Florida, from Texas, from all over the country, that ship fruits and vegetables into those markets. They are the local receivers, the local trade, as they are sometimes called, the carlot receivers, the brokers, the commission men, the dealers, the wholesalers through whom these commodities must be distributed to the retailers.

There are also involved the local health authorities, the local traffic authorities, and the transportation agencies, the railroads and the trucks, and in some places the ships, and by the time you get all of those agencies, all of those groups into agreement as to a place where the market is to be located, and as to how it is to be constructed, what is to be done about it, you have gotten to the point where you cannot afford to run the risk of having to go to any one of those parties, like the railroads, alone and say, "You are the ones that have to

finance it," because as soon as you go to one of those groups and say, "What will you contribute to the financing?" they immediately want some compensation for that contribution. So we have a situation where if we can get all of these interests in agreement on the construction and location of a market, we cannot afford to run the risk of having to go to any one or group of them for the financing, but we must have access to public credit to finance the deal. I think that that is then basically the reason for this bill, to get all of these parties in agreement because there are so many interested in it, the shippers, the growers all over the country, as well as the transportation agencies and the local trade; there are all of these interests involved, and only through public credit can we get the financing for something that involves so many different interests. That I think is fundamentally our propo

sition.

The CHAIRMAN. As proof of that, the railroads have constructed certain facilities but they constructed them only for railroad purposes. Mr. Loos. Yes, sir; that is true, and that is our objection to the railroad facilities at some points, that there are truck shipments coming in and it means that the truck shipments cannot come into the rail facilities. They are sold some other place in town. The buying power and the supplies do not meet at a common point, and you have a disorganized market as a result.

Mr. ALBERT. Do you think that the competition which the different transportation facilities and others have to go through even though they separate their locations keeps the cost down to the consumer on these things or not?

Mr. Loos. Well, I think that the competition between the transportation agencies tends to hold rates down, rates of transportation, and to that extent they tend to hold down the costs to the ultimate consumer. But I think sometimes in competition with respect to terminal facilities that we sometimes run into losses and wasteful practices in the terminal that offset some of that saving in transportation cost, and the total cost perhaps is greater than it would be if there were a unified terminal. We would still have the competition between the transportation agencies with respect to the rates for transportation. We would not have the competition between one terminal and another terminal. I think that competition between two or more terminals for fresh fruits and vegetables in one market is not a particularly helpful competition.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? If not, Mr. Loos, we thank you for your appearance.

Mr. Loos. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. At this point in the record, I would like unanimous consent to include in the record certain communications which have been received by the committee from various individuals and firms and organizations pertaining to the bill under consideration. (The communications referred to are as follows:)

Mr. HAROLD D. COOLEY,
Committee on Agriculture,

STATE OF COLORADO, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Denver 2, Colo., June 26, 1950.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. COOLEY: After receiving a copy of H. R. 8320, which you sent me sometime ago, I read the bill over and discussed it with some of the people in our department. We greatly appreciate the work that you have done on this bill,

for we believe that this is some legislation that would be a great benefit to areas that are in agricultural production.

I think H. R. 8320 would make it possible for us in Colorado to greatly improve our marketing facilities for agricultural purposes. Incidentally, we are very much in favor of the bill and wish to compliment you and your committee on the drafting of this much-needed piece of legislation.

Very truly yours,

Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY,

United States House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN COOLEY: By direction of Perley I. Fitts, commissioner of agriculture for New Hampshire and chairman of the conference of New England Agricultural Commissioners, I am sending you the enclosed copy of a letter sent to all members of the New England Congressional Delegation by Chairman Fitts notifying them of the action taken by the New England commissioners of agriculture held in Boston on May 26 for your information.

Sincerely yours,

MILTON C. ALLEN, Secretary, Conference of New England Agricultural Commissioners.

JUNE 5, 1950.

MY DEAR At the meeting of the Conference of New England Agricultural Commissioners recently held in Boston, it was voted to convey to the Members of Congress from New England copy of the following unanimous vote by the Commissioners of Agriculture relative to bill H. R. 8320.

It was unanimously voted: That the Conference of New England Agricultural Commissioners endorse and approve the objectives of H. R. bill 8320 to encourage the improvement and development of marketing facilities for handling perishable agricultural commodities, as one of the first steps in the general improvement on a national basis.

We trust you will give this bill careful consideration and support.

Sincerely yours,

PERLEY I. FITTS,

Chairman, Conference of New England Agricultural Commissioners.

Congressman HAROLD D. COOLEY,

AUGUSTA, MAINE, June 28, 1950.

Committee of Agriculture, House Office Building: Strongly endorse position of New England Commissioners of Agriculture re H. R. 8320. Believe general provisions of the bill offer excellent means to improve terminal markets expressly in the Northeast. Urge favorable action. A. K. GARDNER, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture.

MONTPELIER, VT., June 26, 1950.

Hon. HAROLD G. COOLEY,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives.

Join with other New England Commissioners in endorsement of H. R. 8320 to New England delegation. Forward my personal endorsement and urge prompt

enactment.

S. G. JUDD, Commissioner of Agriculture.

Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY,

STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Oklahoma City, June 27, 1950.

Chairman Committee on Agriculture,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter in connection with H. R. 8320 relating to improvement of terminal markets.

May I join the Commissioners of Agriculture from other States in their endorsement of the bill and urge prompt enactment.

Thanks very much.

Very sincerely,

HAROLD HUTTON.

TULSA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
Tulsa, Okla., June 5, 1950.

Mrs. MABEL C. DOWNEY,

Clerk, House Committee on Agriculture,

New House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MRS. DOWNEY: Enclosed is a statement of the board of directors of the Tulsa Chamber of Commerce, Tulsa, Okla., signed by Mr. Tom P. McDermott, president, and a copy of a resolution that was passed by the board of directors and sent to Senator Elmer Thomas and Representative Dixie Gilmer.

Please use the statements in any way with the House Committee on Agriculture to give H. R. 8320 encouragement for passage in this session of Congress.

Yours truly,

PAUL LATTURE, Manager, Agriculture Department.

STATEMENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, TULSA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, TULSA, OKLA., CONCERNING H. R. 8320, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE MARKETING FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT ACT

We favor passage of H. R. 8320, otherwise known as the Marketing Facilities Improvement Act.

We think this legislation should be given every consideration possible because we in Tulsa, for example, are in need of a modern central wholesale farmers produce market, a saving in the marketing cost of various perishable agricultural commodities can be made, our present market is outmoded, unsanitary and wholly incapable of handling the volume of farm commodities that a city the size of Tulsa demands.

The following is a direct quotation of the Marketing and Facilities Research Branch, Production and Marketing Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, Report on Wholesale Markets for Fruits, Vegetables, Poultry, and Eggs, for Tulsa, Okla., March 1950, page 75.

"SUMMARY OF SAVINGS

"The potential savings by fruit, vegetable, poultry, and egg dealers in five items of market cost-cartage, porterage, spoilage, and deterioration, and breakage, demurrage, and rents-resulting from an improved market in Tulsa, was estimated at $93,586. This amount of savings includes an estimated rental increase of $15,076. Table 7 below shows the estimated potential savings which would result to the fruit and vegetable dealers and the poultry and egg dealers in the five items of marketing cost.