FOR THE DISPOSAL OF COMBUSTIBLE REFUSE FROM PLACES OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF WASHINGTON

MARCH 31, 1930.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. BOWMAN, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 9767]

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 9767) for the disposal of combustible refuse from places outside of the city of Washington, having had the same under consideration, reports back to the House and recommends the passage of the legislation with the following amendments:

Page 1, lines 5 and 6, strike out the words "several municipalities within the metropolitan area adjacent to the District of Columbia," and insert in lieu thereof:

Board of county commissioners of Montgomery County, State of Maryland; the board of county commissioners of Prince Georges County, State of Maryland; the board of supervisors of Arlington County, State of Virginia, and/or with the several municipalities, taxing areas and communities within the counties aforesaid having power and authority to enter into such agreements, said agreements to permit said counties, municipalities, taxing areas and communities.

Page 2, line 2, strike out the words "and at such price" and insert in lieu thereof, "and for such fees".

Page 2, after the word "specify", in line 3, insert:

Provided, That said counties, municipalities, taxing areas, and communities shall make collections of such material with their own equipment and shall obtain permits from the District of Columbia for hauling or transporting the material over routes within the District of Columbia to be designated by the said commissioners.

The District Committee last Congress authorized the construction of two incinerators to take care of combustible refuse in the city of Washington, and there is an item in the appropriation bill this year to provide for these incinerators. This bill simply gives authority to places adjacent in Maryland and Virginia to use these incinerators, for an adequate fee covering the cost of incineration which will be

determined upon for disposing of waste material, and which will include a portion of the overhead expense and a portion of the total pay roll and transportation costs for disposing of residue.

The District Commissioners also recommend the passage of this bill, with the amendments suggested above, as they feel that this proposed legislation will work to the advantage of the District of Columbia as well as to the outlying communities adjacent to the District.

PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES ACT

APRIL 1, 1930.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the union and ordered to be printed

Mr. HAUGEN, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 108]

The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill (S. 108) to suppress unfair and fraudulent practices in the marketing of perishable agricultural commodities in interstate and foreign commerce, having considered the same, report thereon with amendment and, as amended, recommend that it pass.

GENERAL STATEMENT

The general purpose of the bill is to regulate in interstate and foreign commerce the marketing of fresh fruits and vegetables, live and dressed poultry, and eggs. After rather extensive hearings it was developed before the committee that each year the shippers and growers of such commodities suffer severe losses due to unfair practices on the part of commission merchants, dealers, and brokers. The practice on the part of irresponsible dealers of rejecting purchases of such commodities on a declining market is reported to the committee as causing heavy losses to the grower and shipper annually, particularly in the fruit and vegetable industry. In the years 1923, 1924, and 1925 the apple shippers of one State alone were compelled to take a loss on their apples of $812,000, $435,000, and $235,000, respectively, on account of such unfair practices. The high perishability of fresh fruits and vegetables and poultry and eggs enhances the opportunity for such practices. It subjects shippers to an unnecessary marketing hazard, retards distribution, interrupts and restricts the flow of commerce, and impairs the confidence that should prevail in the marketing of products of such importance to the entire country.

Unfair practice has also been charged against the seller of such perishable commodities. Many instances have arisen where the shipper, after having previously signed a contract to deliver the commodity on a certain date in the future, fails to do so when delivery would be to his disadvantage and he sells to some one else at a higher price. Such a practice at the point of shipment is as unfair as the unjustifiable rejection of shipments in the receiving markets. The bill treats buyer and seller in interstate transactions of perishable commodities alike with respect to the unwarranted repudiation of

contracts.

The problem of effectively dealing with unfair trade practices in the marketing of farm products, particularly the highly perishable products covered by this bill, has been a subject of study and discussion for many years. The unjustifiable rejection on a declining market of shipments by buyers in the city markets is one of the outstanding problems in the fruit and vegetable industry.

The effective control of this and other unfair and unethical practices, such as false accounting and failure to pay on the part of commission merchants for produce intrusted to them for disposition, the circulation of fictitious and misleading market quotations in connection with the soliciting of consignments, making false reports concerning the quality and condition of products, and the making of fraudulent charges in connection with marketing services by commission merchants, dealers, and brokers are problems of long standing. These problems are of equal interest and seriousness to the farmer, the honest dealer, and the cooperative marketing association.

While recourse can be had to the courts for most, if not all, of the practices declared to be unfair by this bill, litigation is but seldom resorted to except in cases involving large sums. Litigation is frequently unsatisfactory as a practical matter. The commodities are highly perishable. In case of dispute immediate disposition must be made of them. Buyers and sellers are often hundreds and frequently thousands of miles apart. In such circumstances litigation is expensive.

The farmer, small shipper, or the manager of a small cooperative association does not have the time or money to conduct the necessary investigation for successful prosecution. Long delays occur in the adjudication of complaints, and frequently judgments can not be collected when awarded. In many cases the amount of the loss suffered from the unfair practice does not warrant the cost of litigation, but taken in the aggregate, these losses are a tremendous burden upon these industries. It is believed that the regulation of interstate commerce transactions of commission merchants, dealers, and brokers as provided in this bill will provide an effective means of suppression and control of the fraudulent practices of which so much complaint is heard. The honest commission merchant, dealer, and broker who now, individually or through his trade association, vigorously condemns these sharp practices will welcome the protection afforded by this bill. The dishonest and unscrupulous operator will be required to conduct his business according to long-established principles of honesty and fair dealing or engage in some other calling.

DETAILS OF THE BILL

The purposes of the bill are to be made effective through a system of licensing with penalties for violations.

The bill requires the licensing of

(1) Commission merchants who are engaged in the business of receiving in interstate or foreign commerce perishable agricultural commodities for sale, on commission, or for or on behalf of another.

(2) Brokers engaged in the business of negotiating sales and purchases of perishable agricultural commodities in interstate or foreign commerce for or on behalf of the vendor or purchaser, respectively.

(3) Dealers engaged in the business of buying or selling in carloads perishable agricultural commodities in interstate or foreign commerce; that is, persons whose principal or chief business is that of buying or selling such commodities in carload lots. Carload may include a corresponding wholesale or jobbing quantity as defined by the Secretary of Agriculture. This will include commodities shipped by trucks, boats, steamships, or otherwise.

The bill does not apply to producers selling such commodities of their own raising. Nor does the bill apply to the ordinary grocer or retailer but only to retailers who handle more than 20 carloads of any such commodity in a calendar year. However, a producer or retailer who is not required by the bill to obtain a license may elect to take a license if he so desires and while the license is in effect he must operate within the provisions of the act. The provisions of the bill do not apply to packers as defined in the packers and stockyards

act.

The unfair and fraudulent practices in the marketing in interstate and foreign commerce of fresh fruits and vegetables, live and dressed poultry, and eggs which the bill declares to be unlawful are

(1) For commission merchants or brokers to make fraudulent charges in the handling of such products.

(2) For a buyer to reject or a seller to fail to deliver without reasonable cause any such commodity.

(3) For any commission merchant to discard, dump, or destroy without reasonable cause any such commodity.

(4) For any commission merchant, dealer, or broker to make any fraudulent and misleading statement concerning the condition, quality, quantity, or disposition of, or the condition of the market for, any such commodity, or to fail or refuse to correctly account to the person with whom the transaction in such commodity is had.

(5) For any commission merchant, dealer, or broker for a fraudulent purpose to misrepresent the State or country in which such commodity was produced.

(6) For any commission merchant, dealer, or broker to fraudulently remove or tamper with any notice placed upon a container containing such commodities if such notice contains a certificate under authority of a Federal or State inspector as to the grade or quality of the commodity contained therein or State or country in which such commodity was produced.

(7) For any commission merchant, dealer, or broker to conspire to manipulate or fix prices of any perishable agricultural commodity. Violations of any of the foregoing provisions are punishable by a suspension or revocation of the license of the offender.