wholesale produce area, occupied by a number of wholesalers. In another section of the city, some 10 blocks from the French Market, is the old Poydras Street wholesale district occupied by wholesale firms which have been handling produce in New Orleans for generations. Thus the wholesaling of produce in New Orleans is now divided into two separate districts, which of course is not an ideal situation. Should New Orleans propose to build a new market, the following actions would have to be taken: 1. A survey of the city would have to be made to locate a suitable site for a new and expanded combined farmers and wholesalers market. 2. The city of New Orleans would have to pay off the bonded indebtedness (approximately $250,000) on the present French Market as a new competing market could not be built by the city under the terms of the bond issue. The present farmers market could then be put to some other use. 3. The method for financing the market would have to be worked out under the terms of H. R. 8320. Difficulties which might develop in the planning of new modern market facilities for New Orleans would include the following: 1. Probable opposition on the part of railroads which now have favorable conditions because of their "tie in" with the present markets. 2. Wholesalers owning property in the present market areas might oppose a new market because of a probable loss in selling their presently owned property in order to move into a new market. 3. More favorable building sites may be available in an adjoining parish, but there might be opposition to constructing the market outside of Orleans Parish, which in reality is the city of New Orleans. As stated previously, our local market committee is in favor of H. R. 8320, but it cannot at this time declare to your committee that the city of New Orleans will utilize the terms of this act in constructing a new produce terminal for the city. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. BATEMAN. I also submit a copy of the Louisiana Act No. 99. The CHAIRMAN. What is that act? Mr. BATEMAN. This provides for local facilities for carrying out the purposes of your act. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, it is a legislative act of the State of Louisiana creating an authority to handle the housing problem for markets? Mr. BATEMAN. To handle this facility problem. That is exactly what it is. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you just file it with the committee. I do not suppose we will have it printed in the record, but you can leave that with the committee clerk. Now, some gentleman indicated he would like to be heard. The CHAIRMAN. All right. We will be very glad to hear you now. STATEMENT OF LOUIS D. GOLDSTEIN, FRUIT AND VEGETABLE DEALER, PHILADELPHIA, PA. Mr. GOLDSTEIN. My name is Louis D. Goldstein. I am in the fruit and produce business in Philadelphia. I have been established now for 33 years and have a fairly good knowledge of the situation at Philadelphia and the method in which the marketing of produce is handled. Unfortunately, I did not get here early enough to hear the entire remarks made by Mr. Crow of the Department of Agriculture, who dwelt particularly on the situation in New York. While I have a fairly good idea of the market situation in New York, I am entirely familiar with the situation at Philadelphia. There has been quite a bit of comment as to the charges assessed against produce in unloading the cars, but nothing has been said that these charges were just recently assessed. When I say "recently," I think the charge was assessed by the ICC probably a little over a year ago or maybe not quite that time. The charges that were assessed for the railroad charges are $45 for the unloading of this produce. Since that time, Commissioner Brown of the ICC and also another commissioner who heard these protests that were vigorously handled by the people in the fruit and produce industry in Philadelphia, as well as the people in the fruit and produce industry in New York, have now come out with a statement that these charges they believe were assessed incorrectly and that they would recommend that they be recalled and that the charge that was brought out so specifically here by Mr. Crow and another gentleman will be done away with. I also want to talk on Philadelphia and these charges that are supposed to be assessed. This unloading charge at the different terminals there is not one that is in excess of 5 percent, and I would say it was closer to 2 percent. I would like to go into the method of handling fruits and produce at Philadelphia and the facilities. Several years ago the Pennsylvania Railroad built three terminals at what is called the Pennsylvania Produce Terminal. This terminal has three platforms with at least a capacity for the unloading of 600 cars of fruits and vegetables Besides this, the Pennsylvania Railroad has facilities-tracks 14 to 29, that have facilities for handling 490 cars of produce. Besides this, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad has two platforms which have an unloading capacity of at least 400 cars and space facilities for 250 cars. I would like very much to go into the details as to the cost that is supposed to be assessed against the handling of fruits and vegetables in Philadelphia, and I, as a merchant, handle anywhere from 1 to 10 or 12 cars per day, although my total handling in the course of a year ranges anywhere from 1,200 to 1,500 cars. Our cars arrive at the Pennsylvania Produce Terminal, where we do the most of our business. We have our teamster go out and sample the cars, one, two, three, and on down. That is done at the "great" cost of $3 per car. We bring our samples over to the platform at a cost of this $3, and we offer those samples for display to the buyers. The buyers in 90 percent of the cases are from out of town. They have to take their trucks and go out to the produce terminal, take their trucks or teams to the tracks when we sell it, and they are able and have facilities to go out without any delay whatsoever, at as cheap a cost as possible. Mr. ABERNETHY. You mean they examine the samples at one place and then go to another place to pick up the merchandise; is that what you mean to say? Mr. GOLDSTEIN. No, sir. That is right at the produce terminal. We sample the cars at the platform on the same produce terminal, within 25 to 150 feet from the tracks. In other words, the tracks. used to start at 13, but now they have eliminated 13, and they have tracks 14 all the way up to 29. These tracks all have room for about 30 cars of merchandise. As a merchant, my cars are placed generally on 18 and 19 tracks. DEVELOPMENT OF TERMINAL MARKETING FACILITIES 19 You have not said anything about this particular bill. I would like to ask you whether the Department of Agriculture is supporting this legislation at this time. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hope, if you will yield, will you please permit me to answer that question. I have requested a report from the Department, but the report has not yet come up. I do not think Mr. Crow is authorized to speak for the Department. In fact, I know he is not, because I talked to him before he took the stand. authorized to speak for the Secretary of Agriculture. He is not However, Mr. Crow has worked with us in the preparation of this bill, and he has worked with the committee in the conduct of its investigation and hearing. Mr. CROW. Yes. I traveled with the committee to make these investigations, and in the course of the report that the committee has prepared I have given technical advice. Mr. HOPE. You are not speaking, so far as this bill is concerned, for the Department of Agriculture, or expressing its opinion on this legislation? Mr. CROW. That is correct. Mr. GRANT. Mr. Chairman? Mr. GRANT. Mr. Crow, you have spoken particularly of the New York Washington Street market. Would you point to one market, or I might say several markets, if you so desire, in the Nation where costs are being kept at a minimum? That is, the handling charges and what might be classed as an A-1 market terminal? Mr. CROW. Yes; I will be glad to. I think I should preface that by saying, though, that there are very few markets that have been so well built that the people operating there and others cannot suggest something about them that could be improved upon. However, it is fairly easy to find some markets that are in the category of being pretty good markets. They have a good market in Denver, Colo., where they have properly designed wholesale stores, direct rail connections with their buildings so they can unload with a minimum cost, the necessary refrigeration rooms in the buildings, and modern materials-handling equipment in the buildings. They have a satisfactory farmers' section for the market, wide streets, parking areas and room to expand. That would be one of the better markets of the country. In Cleveland they have one of the better markets of the country. The chief objection to it is that while they brought the railroad tracks into the market area and were building the entire market area at one time they did not bring those rail connections up to the buildings themselves, so the supplies still must be trucked that last hundred yards. Except for that deficiency the Cleveland market would be one of the best in the country. In Buffalo they have one of the best markets in the country. There they have the same deficiency, however, as in Cleveland of not bringing the railroad tracks up to wholesale houses. Other buildings were built after the first four buildings in Buffalo and to them they provided direct rail connections. They have a good farmers' section. A retail grocer can go to that Buffalo market and get anything that he needs for his grocery store. He can get fresh fruits, vegetables, poultry, eggs, butter, cheese, dry groceries, and so forth. Several The CHAIRMAN. Why would you make a statement like that, when you know that every bit of the evidence in this case indicates that the modern market should be serviced not only by truck, but by rail? Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I want you to know I want to tell you everything. Here is my interest. I have quite a large property on Dock Street. I improved it at a cost of $44,000 recently. There are also improvements put on by other people who own property on Dock Street. I know one outfit in the banana business that has improved their property at a cost of a quarter of a million dollars. The CHAIRMAN. Is that your reason for opposing the bill-because of your personal investment-or is it for some other reason? Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I am opposed to the bill for the taxpayers. I am a taxpayer, and I am opposed to anything that is sponsored that would cost the Government and the taxpayer money that is unnecessary. The CHAIRMAN. How do you figure this is going to cost the Government money if it is a self-liquidating proposition? Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I have made a few notes here, and I would like to bring that out. We started to hear about the cost of rents. That was brought out-these big, high rentals. We have a building with 5 stores and 23 offices. In those 23 offices, there are probably around 12 merchants, and our rentals to the different merchants range from $25 to $40 a month for the offices, which includes heat, light, and janitor service, and for those rents they have the facilities offered them at the produce terminals of both the Pennsylvania and the B. & O. if they so desire. Of course, the produce business or a great deal of the produce business is handled mostly at the Pennsylvania. They can have the car sampled at no cost to the man, no nothing. And what are you going to do when, under the present set-up, we have between 10 and 12 members and they can handle at least 80 to 85 percent of those 18,000 cars last year, and the other 42 members handle approximately 15 percent? What will become of them when they will not be in a position to go ahead into financing, or, as you say, they would be asked to go in and put up so much money to take a spot in the new contemplated market, whereas at the present time the little fellow has an opportunity to handle produce at the terminal without any cost whatsoever except the cost of sampling the cars and the cost of delivery of the cars? The CHAIRMAN. You say in your building you have 5 stores and 23 offices? Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. How much do the offices rent for-$30 to $35 a month? Mr. GOLDSTEIN. $25 to $40-an average of $35. The CHAIRMAN. For how much do the stores rent? Mr. GOLDSTEIN. The stores-our corner store is at the southwest corner of Second and Dock, a display store, which we rent for $300, which includes his office. We have two other stores that rent for a total of $375, including the office. The CHAIRMAN. $375 each? Mr. GOLDSTEIN. A month-no; $375 for both. The next is $200 a month, and the last one is $225, including the office. The CHAIRMAN. You say you have one store renting for $300? Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That is the southwest corner store. The CHAIRMAN. And one for $375? Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That is a double store. It is both for $375. Mr. GOLDSTEIN. One for $200 and one for $225. The CHAIRMAN. I was just trying to find out what your opposition to the bill is. Is it that you are afraid the facilities which might be built in Philadelphia to service the market there might cause you to lose your tenants in those buildings? Mr. GOLDSTEIN. No, sir; I do not think so. I am afraid of this situation: There is a good percentage of people who own their own properties, that use their own stores, that have them fixed up with refrigerators in their own buildings, and with the new market contemplated and built, it would naturally only be that the man is going to protect his own interest. And because there was a glut on the market, who would then suffer the farmer? Or who would get the benefit the consumer? The farmer would suffer, I would say, just like was brought out by one of the Congressmen this morning, who said there is a market in the Bronx that cost $30,000,000 that is not being utilized; it lies there dormant- what people said was needed for a market and the people go to Washington Street. And that is just what would happen on Dock Street, regardless of the fact that it is maintained here we would get more for our dollar. The CHAIRMAN. What this bill does, you understand, is just to provide a fund and to provide an insurance. There is no way Congress can force the city of Philadelphia to accept the benefits of the legislation now under consideration, and if the people of Philadelphia do not want to build a market, there is no way Congress can force them to build a market. Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I have been down on Dock Street ever since I was 17 years of age, and I am 57 now. The CHAIRMAN. How long has Dock Street been a market place? Mr. GOLDSTEIN. It was a market when I went there 40 years ago, and it was a market there before that. I have worked in Dock Street now for 40 years. The CHAIRMAN. And you have worked down there about long enough? Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes; I think so. Now I would like to go a little further and show my opposition to the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you one other question. How much do you have invested in the property you have in Dock Street? Mr. GOLDSTEIN. My building originally cost $200,000, and with the $44,000 of improvements I mentioned, it cost $244,000. The CHAIRMAN. It cost $244,000? Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. And you have 5 stores and 23 offices? Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Would not that still be valuable property, even if it were not operated as a market? Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I can answer that best by saying that business has so depreciated-I mean decreased in handling produce by merchants-that there is a ghost market right now only four blocks away at Callowhill Street where, up until the last 3 or 4 years, there were probably 25 merchants doing business, but on account of the distribu |