Now, let us look at the next step in the process of marketing. All the fish is sent to New York City, some 4 hours ride. Here it becomes part of the great school of fish affecting the general price level and being affected by it. Then a good part of it is reshipped to parts of Connecticut. There is no good reason why the cost of shipment to New York City and back should be added to the price of fish that could be shipped directly to the nearby markets. Connecticut and other parts of New England offer excellent outlets for huge quantities of fish, and especially would this be so if the price of fish could be lowered by lopping off the unnecessary cost of shipment to and from New York City, and the fish could be gotten in better condition to the consumer. This could benefit both the consumer and the fisherman. The question then presents itself why is this not done.

This leads me to my third point, namely, the need for cooling and storage facilities. In order to develop the local markets of New England, we must have a place to keep the fish for a while. We must have a cooling plant where we can store our fish prior to "lotting” and shipping to the local markets. We would need such a plant to counteract the overabundant supply that sometimes meets a sluggish demand, as well as aid the bigger catch in hard seasons. The effect of steadying the supply and thus preventing great fluctuation in price would be to assure a greater and steadier demand.

Such a plant would best be built on the very dock. But here again some $6.000 or $8.000 would be necessary, only part of which our association could raise. Here, also, it would be useless to apply to a local bank for a loan, as the same influences would oppose it. Here, too, the proposed Fishery Credit Corporation could do excellent service in giving the fisherman a helping hand in his attempt to help himself.

I have tried to show some of the important problems confronting the fisherman that could be solved only by means of a set-up as contemplated by this bill. There are many others as well. It is for this reason that the Southern New England Fishermen's Association is unequivocally and whole-heartedly in favor of this bill, despite the obrious inadequacy of the sum appropriated.

We hope that this bill will receive your favorable recommendation and that the forgotten fishermen will also be remembered by this administration among the other forgotten men,

The CHAIRMAN. That is a very valuable contribution. Are there any questions?

Mr. Oliver. Can you make any statement as to the range of prices that is in etfeet between the price that the fisherman actually gets for his fish and the retail price that is tinally collected froin the consumer!

Mr. Margolis. Well, the range is quite a fluctuating one, depending on whether the supply is large or small.

M: OLIVER. (ould you cite just a couple of instances that might serve as examples!

Mr. Margelis. In some cases the difference is anywhere from 5 to 8 cents a pound.

Mr. OLIVER. You are speaking now of the actual whole fish that were brought into the dock and the price tinally paid by the consumer.

Mr. Marcolis. Th. it is right,

Mr. OLIVER. I had an idea it was a wider range than that.

Mr. MARGOLIS. It depends on the particular season. I am talking now of the last part of the season.

The CHAIRMAN. I call attention, Mr. Oliver, to a statement made in 1934 by Captain Proctor, president of the Master Mariners' Association, of Gloucester, Mass., I do not know whether the same condition exists now, or not

I was in Chicago this summer

That was in 1933— with Captain Pine, of the schooner Thebaụd, and while there I saw mackerel sold for 35 cents a pound while our men were receiving 142 cents.

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is not exceptional.
The CHAIRMAN (reading):

And they would have got down to a cent if it was not for themselves forming together and curtailing the production of fish and bringing in 20,000 pounds where they could bring in 80 or 90 thousand if they wanted to.

Then, there was some evidence at that time along the same line. You say that is an exception?

Mr. MARGOLIS. I say that is not exceptional.

The CHAIRMAN. It did not appear to be exceptional from the testimony that was brought out by us at that hedring.

Mr. OLIVER. That range of prices is due to some extent, possibly, to the lack of equipment of these fishermen themselves ?

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is right.
Mr. OLIVER. For processing?

Mr. MARGOLIS. They cannot do any processing at all, because they have not the equipment. They know the art of processing and could do it if they had the equipment. That again depends on the possibility of getting a loan, which is not forthcoming from any bank.

The CHAIRMAN. They also have to have facilities, such as you suggested a while ago, for storage and things of that kind, to take care of the surplus ? Mr. MARGOLIS. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. In a period of glut? Mr. MARGOLIS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. In order that they might hold their fish off of the market, and so maintain the market.

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. There is also considerable question as to the method whereby the fish are transported to market, is there not, as, for instance, that they shall be transported in such a way that the consumer knows he is getting a good product?

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is right, and the proper icing facilities, and Mr. OLIVER. Do you think, Mr. Margolis, that this bill would be of great value to small fishermen!

Mr. MARGOLIS. I definitely think it would be of the greatest value to the small fisherman—the man who positively cannot get any help anywhere else. This is something he has been looking for and did not know where he could get it.

So on.

The CHAIRMAN. In the hearings in 1934, Dr. Sirovich asked the question of one of the witnesses:

Why should mackerel sell at 35 cents a pound, when they only paid 50 cents a hundred? Where does the profit go?

Mr. MacInnis answered: That is what we have been unable to find out. That is where the distribution system does not seem to keep pace with the production system, and that is what the producing fishermen are complaining about.

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is true today, too.
The CHAIRMAX. Are there any further questions?

Mr. SEGER. You say your fishermen come from the southern part of New England. What does that embrace!

Mr. MARGOLIS. Mostly from Connecticut.

Mr. SEGER. Now, if you located a distribution plant or a cold-storage plant, have you any place in mind where you would go!

Mr. MARGOLIS. Well, we could locate it right in Mystic, Conn., where the headquarters of this organization are.

Mr. SEGER. Then you would not send your fish to the New York market at all?

Mr. MARGOLIS. There would be no need, probably, for sending any of the fish to the New York market.

Mr. SEGER. You would distribute them around Boston and New England!

Mr. MARGOLIS. Also in parts of Connecticut-Bridgeport and those cities.

Mr. SEGER. Is that a large enough market for them, to make it profitable!

Mr. MARGOLIS. I think ther would take care of most of the fish.

Mr. SEGER. Would you then, as cooperatives, control the market price? Would not the natural thing be for you to keep the price on a par with those who now buy fish from you and sell it? You would not undersell them to any great extent, would you!

Mr. MARGOLIS. Xo; certainly we would not undersell them to any great extent, because the practice has shown that cooperatives, if anything, tend to higher prices—to keep prices high, rather than to bring them down lower. As a matter of fact, as I understand, in other parts of the country where there are cooperatives, they are definitely keeping prices up so that those who are not in cooperatives will come around to paving higher prices

Jr. SEGER. I meant br underælling, if they were selling fish for 30 cents a pound, which would be an enormous protit, you would not sell for 20 cents or 25 cents?

Mr. MARGULIS. No; certainly we would not. The only thing is that estra profit would go back to the producers who are getting nothing now.

Mr. SEGER. The consumer thereby would not be benefitet!

Mr. MarcoLIs Not unless ererbily agree to lower prices. There would not be such a thing as undercutting

Mr. OLITER. Do I understand you to ser: Mr. Margulis that the establishment of additional cooperatives in iletishing iniustry rould tend to increase the price to the consumers

Mr. MARGOLIS. No: I do not say that, but I sit would tend to gire the fishermen a bigger return on the present prices as it is now. Mr. OLIVER. In other words, the price level to the consumer would not necessarily increase because of the cooperatives?

Mr. Margolis. No; it would not. The only thing is that people who are acting in the capacity of a leech on the industry—and there are various divisions doing that would be eliminated, and the people actually giving service would get a fair return for the service offered.

Mr. OLIVER. In other words, the cooperatives might bring more competition into the price level, which might possibly have a tendency to lower the price level to the consumer? Mr. MARGOLIS. That might be. I could not venture an opinion on

. that, but that might be.

Mr. OLIVER. Do you know what the experience has been with cooperatives in other lines than fisheries?

Mr. MARGOLIS. In other lines than fisheries, the experience has been it has brought down the price to consumers on certain occasions.

Mr. OLIVER. That is, they have brought the price level down for the consumer's benefit?

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is right; in certain cases.

Mr. OLIVER. That was the reaction I had. I probably misunderstood what you said, but I thought you said it would have a tendency to increase the price. I am glad to have that point cleared up as well as you have.

Mr. SEGER. I do not think it is cleared up yet. If you expect the Government to subsidize these cooperatives, and they are not going to give the consumer the benefit, why should the Government go in the business?

Mr. MARGOLIS. I would not consider that as the Government going in business in that case any more than the Government gives the farmers a subsidy. I would not call it a subsidy.

The CHAIRAN. Is not a parallel situation that you are trying to improve the price of agricultural products, and the fisheries are just as much entitled to have the price increased to the producer!

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. At the hearing we held in 1934 the testimony generally given before the committee was to the effect it would certainly not increase the price to the consumer and would probably stabilize the price to the consumer, but would result in vastly increased returns to the producer.

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is absolutely correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Not so much because it would eliminate leeches upon the industry, as because of the elimination of uneconomic and wasteful methods of distribution and marketing, which could be removed by the cooperative organization if the people had the money with which to cooperate, but they can not get credit for the formation of these cooperatives and do not know how to form them.

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Even if it increased a little the price to the consumer, as you very pertinently said, that is what we have done with agriculture and in other commodities—that we are trying to increase the price there to the consumer in order to get some benefit to these underdogs.

Mr. MARGOLIS. The point I would like to make is it does not necessarily have to increase the price to the consumer and at the same time give the original producer å bigger return on the work he is putting in.

The CHAIRMAN. That was the general consensus of opinion at the time we had these hearings in February and March 1934. We did not have a bill of this kind before the committee at that time, but the general consensus of opinion was that some system might be put into effect of aids that would help the producer and yet not impose additional burdens upon the consumer.

Just in that connection, I want to cite here, for the benefit of the members of the committee, a Government document, the number of which I will insert in the record, showing subsidies and aids that are given by foreign countries to their fisheries. That was a study made by the Tariff Commission, was it not, Mr. Fiedler?

Mr. FIEDLER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And the report was made to the Senate and published in the last year, as I recall, and is very illuminating.

Mr. OLIVER. Does that include the value of the fishery industries to those foreign countries!

The CHAIRMAN. I am not sure whether that is brought out or not. I do not think it is. But there are some other features and it is a very illuminating document in showing the aids and benefits. The Government in many cases, I think in Canada, participates in the formation of these cold-storage plants, and financing them for the benefit of the fishery industry.

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is right. As a matter of fact, in making a study of this question, I wrote to the Dominion of Canada on the subject, and they volunteered the statement they would be ready to give any help necessary for the formation of a cooperative in Connecticut if we were interested there.

The CHAIRMAX. The document I hare reference to is the Report to the United States Senate on Subsidies and Bounties to Fishery Enterprises by Foreign Governments, submitted by the United States Tariff Commission in 1936. Report No. 116, second series.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD H. COOLEY, ON BEHALF OF THE

MASSACHUSETTS FISHERIES ASSOCIATION Mr. COOLEY. My name is Edward H. Cooley, of the Massachusetts Fisheries Association. I should like, Mr. Chairman, to preface my remarks by saying that my remarks should not in any sense be considered as against this bill, for I am not appearing against it. I believe there are some erroneous things, however, that may be in the minds of the committee.

I was interested in your reference to mackerel selling at such a low price to the producer and such a high price to the consumer.

The CHAIRMAX. Whom do you represent, Mr. Cooley?

Mr. COOLEY. The Massachusetts Fisheries Association, and I have been asked by the chairman of the Roper Fishery Advisory Committee, Mr. Poole, to appear here so that I may carry some of his thoughts to the committee.

The CHAIRMAX. Some of those are fish-buying concerns, are they not!

Mr. COOLEY. Many of them are. I should like, since you have mentioned that, specifically to state that a member of any fish-buying concern is always interested in getting the highest price he can for his product, regardless of what he may have paid the producer for it.