LOBBY INVESTIGATION

HEARINGSf lIF.Ottv A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THECOMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES SENATESEVENTY-FIRST CONGRDlESS

SECOND SESSIONPURSUANT TO

S. Res. 20.A RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE TUE ACTIVITIES

OF LOBBYING ASSOCIATIONS AND LOBBYISTSIN AND AROUN4D-WASHINGTON, DIS-

TRIOT OF COLUMBIA

VOLUME 2INDEX IN VOLUME 4

NOVEMBER 19, 1929 To JANUARY 17, 1930

Printed for the use of the Commltteo on the Judiciary

*

UNITED STATESGOVERNMENT PRINTING OPPICH

31304 WASINGTON: 193

TCOMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 11

GEORO W. NORRIS, Nebraska, ChafemanWILLIAM IL BORAH$ Idaho. LIM S. OVERMAN, North Carolina. PCHARE S. DEON, Illinois. HENRY F. ASHURST, Arizona.FREDERICK H. OILLET, Massachusetts. THOMAS J. WALSH, Montana. ttteARTHUR R. ROBINSON, Indiana. THADDEUS I. CARAWAY, Arkansas. AJOHN J. BLAINE, Wisconsin. WILLIAM H. KING, Utah. SeFREDBRICK STRIWER, Oregon: HUBERT D. STEPHIUNS. Mississippi. 00rnCHARLES W. WATERMAN, Colorado. C. C. DILL, Wasbington.DANIEL 0. HASTINGS, Delaware.FRLIX HEBERT, Rhode Island.

JOnH P. Rom o,. OrkWILIAM L. Javm, Afestant Olerk

SunOMMIrEIm ON SHNAT3 RESOLUTION 2.4) ptiTHADDEUS H. CARAWAY, Arkansas. Olhacnum Di

WILLIAM . BORAH, Idaho. THOMAS J. WALSH, Montana. PerARTHUR I. ROBINSON, Indiana.JOHN J. BLAIN, Wisconsin.

mentDo

J s i

Grassfesso-ton, 'r

EssenSo-Duj

syliiSenDoc

YorkcSenDoe

CornSen

themI

LOBBY INVESTIGATION

TURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1929

UNM'r STATES SENATE,SUBCOMMI31rEE OF THE COI3arrrEE OX TE JUDICIARY

Washington, b. a.The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock

a. i., in room 212, Senate Office Building, Senator Thaddeus H.Caraway, chairman, presiding.

Present: Senators Caraway (chairman) and Walsh of Montana;Senators Borah and Robinson of Indiana appearing later as herein-after noted.

Also present: John C. Holland, Esq., counsel to the committee.Senator CARAWAY. Is Doctor Cathcart in the committee room?

Come around, please, Doctor.

T TIMONY OF DR. WILLIAM R. CATHOART, CORN PRODUCTSREINING 00., 17 BATTERY PLAOE, NEW YORK CITY

fI'he witness was duly sworn by the chairman.)enator CAAiVAY. Give your name, place of residence, and oecu.

nation, if you please, to the reporter.Doctor CATIICArr. William R. Catheart. My home addres is 174

Park A'enue, Leonia, N. J. My business address is 17 Battery Place,New York City. I am employed by the Corn Products Refining Co.Senator CARAWAY. What waS yoit o7 ti0pror t hs mlyment, Doctor? li

Doctor CATiJCAIT. Wel,,*,Tr tia, -,y'de" '0f'"'" , is of phi-losophy at the Universit ': Eeidelbei Zwas ' ep by theGrasselli Chemical Co., Ml-eveland, 0b After t'M ,J pro-fessor of chemistry A hBcs at the C6 I of Char z']Jes-ton, S. C., which is ' tivstate. Afte;.that. W .ia w. ... emi-cal manufacturing 6rn,*Mt that time o ., thdn S a rdEssence Co., of Maywood, N.- ,.

Senator CARAWA. Was that ot fi '*gt pducts_Doctor CATUCABi.. They made a vailety of products. They ir ade

synthetic vanolin litkdum compquno, an things of that kind,Senator CARWY'" -Well, go ahed. . 'Doctor CATHAiRI', Afer.&tt I was doing consulting Work k New

Yorc City for a year of two. -Senator CAAVAi. What do you meai b. that?Doctor CATAnT. %OhbiMal consulting*&rk. Then I went*to the

Corn Products RefiniiOn6c'-0 " JSenator CARAWAY. yer diWhtit'* tour- pllyinent withthem ": '

*1' ~ 1241

1242 LOBBY INVESTIGATION

Doctor CATHOART. I went with the Corn Products Refining Co. inMarch, 1%1.

Senator CARAWAY. What are your duties with that companyIDoctor CATHOART. My duties with that company are rather varied.

I have a great deal to do with the technical uses of our products.For instance, with the textile people and the paper people, and insome respects in the food industries and things of that kind.

Senator CARAWAY. You are not the president of that associationIDoctor CATucAir. B no means, Senator.Senator CARAWAY. You are rather a technician? A chemistsDoctor CATHCART. Yes.Senator CARAWAY. You deal with the chemical products?Doctor CATHOART. Yes.Senator CARAWAY. You have been very vitally interested in having

your sugar removed from the ban of the pure food law so that youcould call it cane sugar?

Doctor CATOARIT. Not at all.(At this point appeared Senator Robinson of Indiana.)Doctor CATitcArI. I would like, if you would allow me, to coireet

that impression, Senator. 1e have no desire for our sugar to becalled or to be sold as anything else but corn sugar. What we haveworked for and are still working for is to grant to corn sugar thesame privilege, for instance, that is granted to oleomargarine. leo.inargarine is to be sold in original packages, so labeled, and westand squarely on that. We do desire, however, that when anybodypurchases our sugar that they will be allowed to use it as an ingredi.ent in food products, the same as cane and beet suga., without dis.crimination.

Senator CRAIWAY. I think I understand that. 1Doctor CATJUcAirr. Yes; I did not want you to get the impression M

that we had any desire to sell this sugar for something other thanit is.

Senator CARAWAY. Of course, the legislation has been pending here, Tand it speaks for itself. T

Doctor OtTjimr. Yes. eSenator CARAWAY. You spoke of oleomargarine. You are not will.

ifig for it to pay a tax like oleomargarine is taxed, are you?Doctor CATIICAIIT. WO should be ver sorry to have that done. I

do not think the corn growers would i e that, either.Senator CARAWAY. Well, I don't think the other folks like it, but

Vou just said you wanted to be treated like the oleomargarine peoplee. oI wanted to know if that was correct.Doctor OATMAvIrr. I will use another illustration, if you will allow

me.Senator CARAWAY. W'ell, that is all right. I don't think that is

material.Doctor CATiw,.iT. E dible oil is in exactly the site class. aSenator CARAWAY. Whlt is that?Doctor CATuICART. I say. edible oil is in exactly the same cla.cs.Setiato'r C.'nAwA'. Anyway, you have maintained a vety large aid of

active force that has been propagandizing the couttry in ito inerestof your product, haven't you ?

)octor CATUCAUT. We have not.

LOBBY IN VESTIOATION

Senator CARAWAY. None at all?Doctor CATucAnT. That has principally devolved upon myself. I

think that I am quite frank in saying that I have been called uponboth by Members of Congress and by Senators to give informationin regard to this very important problem rather than having soughtan opportunity to put out any propaganda.

Senator CARAWAY. If ou wil pardon me, have you maintained aplace here in Washington

Doctor CATUcAmr. No;we have not.Senator CARAWAY. You have no office here?Doctor OATHC'Asr. No, sir; none at all.Senator C wARAAY. Do you have tny propaganda that you seek to

get into the newspapers? Do you issue releases, and so on?Doctor CATHcART. No; not in regard to corn sugar or anything else,

as far as I know.Senator CARAW.%Y. How many people are in your New York office?Doctor CATHOAM"T. Well, now, we occupy, I should say, almost three

floors in the Whitehall Building. I guess there are two or threehundred people there. I have never been interested to ascertainexactly how many, but we have a very large staff there.

Senator IVALSH of Montana. Just tell us in brief what have beenIour activities in promoting this legislation that has been pendingere before Congress for several years.Doctor CATIcIART. May I go into that from the beginning?Senator IVALSii of Montana. Well, go into it as far as necessary

to answer my question,Doctor CATICAnT. The corn-sugar legislation started-I have for-

gotten the exact year, it was probably 1-926 or 1927--when a bill wasintroduced simultaneously, I believe, in the House by CongressmanCole and in the Senate by Senator Ctinmins, brought in as an amend-ment to the pure food law. We knew nothing at all about thatlegislation. had no connection with it whatsoever, until after it hadbien introduced, and as a matter of fact. Pad passed the Senate.Then we were called upon to give information in regard to it. Itwas not in any way initiated by u q or sponsored by us. We were, ofCourse, interested and very willing to give correct. accurate, andreliable information in regard to (he problem involved. In that wayI fli.st came into the picture.

As you probablyy know, that bill failed of passage hy tlai' adjurn-ment of Congress. Then the legislation was reviveiI by tI1e in-troduction of bills by Congressman Cole and Senalor Capper. Allof this legislation was primarily directed for the benefit of the corngrowers, because-

Senator VATsit of Montana. Ostensibly, at least.Doctor CATI CAnT. And actually and really, because it is perfectly

well known that if the use of this sugar i.i increased it will broadenand increase enormously the market for American grown corn. Ona most conservative estimate it will provide a market for 20,000,000bushels.

Senator WALSH of 31ontana1. We do not care to go itto the meritsof it.

Doctor CATitAirr. I beg your pardon.

1243

1244 LOBBY INVESTIGA'TIONSenator WALSH of Montana. 1 am simply asking you what your

activities in the matter have been.Doctor CATIVAiT. These have been my activities, that when I have

been called upon to give this information I have been glad andwilling to do it.Senator WALSH of Montana. That is all, then, as I understand you

now, the sole part that your corporation or organization has hadin tile mnatter;, is that when it has been called pon for informationabout the matter, it has furnished the information?

Doctor CATiWArr. Exactly; but when we have found that mis.statements and misrepresentations have been made, we of course,naturally were interested in correcting those.

Senator WAlSH of Montana. Just how did you go about correctingthose misrepresentations?

Doctor CATIWir. Through correspondence. InSenator WALSH of Montana. Correspondence with whom?Doctor OATiWADRT. Oh, sometimes with members of Congress; 01

sometimes with Senators. IIISenator WALsH of Montana. Did you use the p-ess for the purpose A

of correcting it 1l0Doctor CATCWAmr. Not directly. I was invited at different times

to make addresses, which I did. I was invited to contribute arti.cles to journals, which I did. That is about the extent of myactivities.

Senator WALSH of Montana. By whom wvere those invitationsextendedI

Doctor CATHCAT. Of course, not knowing exactly what I was go. Wing to be asked about, I have not refreshed my memory, so I am otspeaking largely from memory. I recall that I was asked partic-ularly to deliver an address before the North Jersey section of theAmerican Chemical Society, which was a rather lengthy paper.To

Senator WALSH of Montana. Let, us have this clear Was thatinvitation extended to you for the purpose of setting forth yourviews concerning this le/rislation?

Doctor CA'1nvMr. It was a discussion of the entire corn-sugar thiproblem, involving also the legislative features..

.Senator W %iH of M1fontana. I can very readily understand. Doc-tor, that yout might be invited by scientific societies and that kind ofthing to discu-s corn products generally. That does not interest me Puiat till. I am referring to invitations that were extended to you to Voldiscis this legislation. hi

Doctor C.%Tulc.i' If you narrow It down to that, I recall an invi- pination thlt was extended to me by the vi(.e president of the AmericanForm Bureau Federation, who was also clairmion of their resolutionscommittee. In response to that invitation I appeared before that notcommittee at their meeting in Chicago, I think it was last December.The question of corn-sugar legislation wis very thorbughly gone intoat that time and resulted in t ie American Farm Bureau Federation thepassing a resolution which they put on their legislative program as shaof interest to agriculture in general and particularly to the corn haigrowers.

Senator V,%tsH of Montana. Then you had an invitation from the WitFarm Bureau Federation to discuss the subject before that body? we;

Wi

LOBBY INVESTIGATION

Doctor CATHCARtT. Exactly.Senator W,1IS of Montana. What other organizations extended

you such invitation?)octor CA3IC1AIT. I do not recall any others of that type.Senator WAJJHII of Montana. Now, you wrote articles at the re-

quest of some of them. Who requested you to write articles on thislegislation ?

Doctol CATIIcir. After I made that adecs before th NorthJesl.ey, action of the Anterican Chemical Society I was visited by 1)r.Veal Gordon. editor of the Journal of Cliemial Education. I thinkle is also connected with the University of Maryland. He liad re-.quested a copy of this address, and after reading it lie .aidl he wouldlik for mc to write a series of articles for his journal.

Senator W ,sjI of Montana. Was that with respect to the legis-fition?.Doctor CAritc.%rr. The article was written in three sections. andi

one of those sections treated of the legislation, because it had an e.o-noic imn-ortanwe. In that way that wa. bI'ought in, 'l'h,,artieheswere. pubihsied under the title " The Story of a Ofrain of Corn "inlheournal (if Chemical Education. I have forgotten the issues. butI think it was in 1928 that that was done I

Senator W, Atqix of Montana. Then we have now that you made at%address upon the invitation of various bodies, including farni organi-zations?

Doctor CATHCART. Yes.Senator WALLSU of Montan. And you published articles dealing

with this subject, upon the invitation of the editors of technical andother journals?

Doctor CATHCART. Yes, sir.Senator Amzsn of Montanan. Very well. Was there anything else

you did to bring this natter before the public er to ciultivate publicwentinent with respect to it?

Doctor CAT'11CAmR. I aim quito frank to say, Senator, that I em-braced every opportunity that was offered to'set forth the muo'it:; ofthis proposition. It would be rather diffIcult for me right now tospecifyy oilier instances, other thi those that I have uimentioned-notthat I am trying to hold any of them back at all.

Senator WAisi of Montana. Let tie see if I can state briefly thepurport of this legislation. Under the existing pure food haw ifyour corn sugar enters into any article of food or preserves or thatkind of thing, the label must indicate that corn sugur is used in thepreservation of the food product?

DoctorCATIWCART. In the preparation of it; yes. sir.Senator WALsn of Montana. While cane sugar or beet sugar need

not thus be specified?Doctor CATICAUT. Yes, sir.Senator VAistt of Montana. And.you want to have the law

changed so that when corn sugar is thus used as a preservative itshall not be so designated upon tle label? In other words, it shouldhave the same immunity as is extended to cane sugar and beet s;ugirI

Doctor CATIMART. Substantially that is the case. I want, if youwill allow me to make this coment-that provision is not in anyway a part of the pure food law. That is purely an arbitrary regu-lation in the administration of the pure food law.

1245

1246 LOBBY INVE.STIOATION

Senator W. LSUt of Montana. However, you want the law so thatyou will not have to (o that?

Doctor CATKiwAiT. And, since all efforts to secure for corn sugarwhat we consider proper and fair treatment have been futile; theobject of Mr. Cole and Senator Copper and Senator Cummins inintroducing this bill--

Senator CA IAwAY. Will you pardon me just a moment, please. Ido not want to be discourteous but if you go on to deliver a lectureon every question that is asked, we will not get through.

I)oet(or ,ATCAIrr. It is a very broad subject. I appreciate yourposition. I anti willing to be interrupted at any time. r

Senator CAiAWAY. Y' our people will want you back in New Yorksoie time.

Doctor CATEIC,%IT. I just wanted to get this f undaniental principle iinto the record.

Senator WALVxth of Montana. The fundamental principle is this, isit not, that either by expre.,s provision of the law or by a rule of thedejtrtnient you are required to label the product? Re

o0o(0 4riiC.urr. By a trule of the department.Sentoi' W ALSII of Montana. Thie Inia nu facttrers ising your corn de

sugars must label the package as containing corn sugar IDoctor CATIrwCurr. exactly, and that is at commercial-

e.neiiator W ,isUs of 'Montina. And the legislation vou want is clegislation that will (10 away with that, so that the abel need notbea' evidence that corn sugar is used in the pr'.ervat ion?

Doctor C.ATeIo.mrr. So that these regulations- ifSenator W S.rIm of Montana. Well. never mind. Is that the fact?Doctor UA.TnomIr. That is the fact; yes.Senator W.%Lsii of Montana. Ver.y well. .ow, this legislation,

you say, has been pending how lon"-Doctor C.VrwUcm Well. it was fll. t started under the Cuininins.

Cole bill, which I think was in 1926.Senator WALmSH of Montana. Oh, it is away back about 1922,

isn't it ?Doctor CATIICAuT. You may be correct, Senator. But as I say, I

ant speaking entirely from memory.. Senator WAtsu of Montana. You' organization is a member of theDomestic Sugar Producers Association, is it not V

Doctor CATHICART. We are.Senator IV rsn of Montana. When did it become such? theDoctor CATjncrrr. We became members in 1928; the sumner of tthis

1028. thaSenator W, smr of Montana. Is your product-that is, corn sugar-- the"

sold on the market in the same general way thtt beet sugar and cane dos1 tfar is sold ? tog

Doctor CATIIAUT. Not in the same genera) way- no. It is sold maralmost entirely in hundred pound bags; not ir small quantities. rM

Senator IV,4.si of Montana. For preservative Iurposes, not for udomestic useI giveTDoctor CATmowr'. No; not for domestic use, because we tried tthat- our

Senator VArsn of Montana. Well, never mind about the "be.cause." It is not thus sold, but is used, generally speaking, for

LOBBY INVESTIGATION 1247

preserving canned peas, canned bean, tanned tomatoes. anid t1Mt kindf thingIDoctor CATIMANT. :-o it is not for that. on account of these

regulations.enator' WAI.s1 of Montan. Well, just iwhat is the more common

use of it?Doctor CATIUnAuI iho. food tuses of corn sugar at the present time

are limited to the baking induist ry, because the definition for "bread"does not say that only cane or beet stugar should be used.

Senator WV' -s rit of Montana. Let us leave out the "because,"Doctor, and answer the (jitestion frankly. Wlhat is its more commonuse now for food l)1rpol.Ies?

Doctor (,A'rUC'AT. It is also used quite largely in the ice-creamindustry. It is used in confections.

Senator WIALSH of Montana. Just what was yiour object in joiningthis Domestic Sugar Producers Association?

Doctor CATC.UIT. Iell, may I establish a background for ouraction in the matter, very briefly?

We were very muiich stirprised ant(, I confess, rather pleased anddelighted when we receivers a letter from Congressman Cole stating,I believe--1 thik I have that letler-.sting -that lie had ben ad-vised by some represeitatives of the Domestic Sugar Prothdcers Asso-dation-

Senator WALSH of Motitana. Is that COnIgi{0."llllfi Cole of Ohio?Doctor CATHCnRT. Cyrentis Cole of Iowa. And wanted to know

if we would be interested in becoming members of the DomesticSugar PrIodtcers Association.

Senator WAL18L1 of Montana. Have you got Mr. Cole's letter there?Doctor CATIMAET. I have.Senator W .8LsU of Montana. Will you let us see it?Doctor C ATIOAUT. Yes. sir [producing letter].Senator WALSh! of Moiitna. I read:

C }NORIMS OF TUE UNITED STATES.HOUSE OF IIEPRUE*STATIES.

lVWahiglnl, ). A .. Mala 25, 1029.Dr. W. R. CATUOABT,

Corn Products Refinig o.,New Yor. N. Y.

M1y DEAR Do-Tr CATHOAB: Mr. Jou1n B. Pratt. eXfutive vie president ofthe Domestic Sugar Producers Association. together with Mr. Mead, of theHawaiian lnlerest-i and a representative of the Lonislana cane, called on methis morning to confirm what I have told them Ivrevioasiy. that I. that I helevedthat the corn-sugar men would be glad to cooperate with them fit protecting alltheir ui'trlllt'. rs iIailist tariff rehluelion ill so on. TI..v iIuIV.' formed ui as.o.elation for defensive and offensive Purposes. aid, I hi'liev, that we can affordto go ii with them. for they are willing for u- to fill out' little place In thesugar hihlsulry. Their itont Is that if we till tire giveui access to the Americanmarkets there will lie roonn for sill i these markets. and with all that we canProdulue we will still fall short of cotlwutlon ani slill need more importedsuga. They tare willing to help us get onui rights for the help that we cangive them If we should ever get our farm organizations back of corn sugar.

They ire goilig to write ymu awl to Mr. Ctuajit tibuit ti lilmatter. mti(II hope that you 'irn Mil .some lIasi-s of ti.ail erathil. tI live tdld theni, ofcourse. tht It h. prhunitirly till to you at111l your a.s,,einHt!on.

'cerelyTU Col.r.

Have you got a copy of your reply?Doctor CkATiWamIT. The dtate of t hat letter is May 25, isn't it?

1248 LOBBY1 JNVEST1OATI0NSen1ator IVALSU Of MoHNana. Yes.etDoctor OxriuAirr. Here is8 any repl1y, dated May 28.anSezntor WVALSHK of AMontiaA readi: ltt

M1AY 2S, 1928),. YO110o). CYHs,.uI COLE, h

Howse Offlve ltildi, Wvishluylon, D. 1. letDEAR 3111. COJ.E: Younr letter of Way 23. rt'ft'rrlig to tltt, Visit of 11i. JIohn

B. Pratt, executIve vie president of 'uimicilt Sutgar P'rodutcers' Assmcialion, mMaw ben read w~th great interest.AWe are very glad to know that the deautslc iroduvera of Cane11 Sugal, Ind W_

beet .4tgar rev41g1l?.ep lbt there i.- no g~rounid for ttltgoflhin 1uwwe flb~r ifInterests and thove of flit- Amaericani earn groWers and fle Amierleaat viris sugaraini u fact irer,.. We wIll certainly be %v4ry glail to idketis.., Wilit thleml t11' tilehiterests of liith tmay lie furillereul.

Thix imoritljig I hIvivo r4''1eviA it letter from Alto. Joiumi It 11. Iiati. executiveviet' premn''ut Doieste S4igttr 1'rijiluers', Assue. 1111u0. WaUSliingou., I). 0.,havitmig it efnfere'tlc with blimit 111nd oiler ('Ill~erx Olf It II-; 'tlo 11s too luw('fouieratIinit (,tlt bet e'fiN ted. I nin wilthitg AMie 11rait ast ler lIteinsid. Polly. riM'iniild fhiii'tifeienvets i('fe'r('I toi tuake 11111.' In wa-1ts.-tt'l. 1 11ui111 lirigvery glad to havoc ytin vrt'i""t If you tare ii Wa.shlington nt thuga Ut1L 11114 amti t farIlIliiI(d to linflICpaIte Ini tilt" #1i--cusloui.

Have youl got a copy' of tile letter' youl W,140 to 31r. Ipratt? ztDoctor CATHCARIT. 11Cre is Mr. Pra'ttt's letter' to me. 011(1 hereis at copy of niy reply' to 31'r. Piaft.sa

Senator W,;isn of Montana rtending] : Ab-I %~ S~ o;.%tg 1I(E uivetao' A ,ss'er.ATt' 'x

NATIONAL I'E.IiK 11i.Ot. Isl

'Ivehu.euil ))ircl o,' Corn Proditebs Th/luiibhi Co., desNegr York Clity.31Y I)kl.RF Dmiron CATHCA~RT: As voit ion)3 know ile )omuestie S4uugm r Pr.

tiucers' A'xsoclatthm wax~ recently orgilz'd here by the lUnlted-laIoe.- 11eet SugarAsuii-atoiu, Amerlemi Sower 'tie Leiig-ure litfit- United Skles4 (hwlj.)Iiawiallon Su:gar Pliante'rs* A.o lll. andi A" n.'ielm101) of Sugar 1rIuisof usPoritoi Ul1-). 1[15 In'iJlM'orsl~) hip 11(1-ee lirallually till of flit, hu.''I -sivil r-151 lie evegr'uwers- (if file United Slttles mtid thle tu'rrifiorles of IftawalI a11( Porto You*'iTIhae fminnidita Iflh'IIE.W of ft' D) unesle Xm'luor Pritdeer.-a Assuelnthii is to oStiiiiu1lat( the. output of .homnesil sugar and., i: so doinv. 1to advanetlt' grinvwtfcoif file Amerk'anti sugar-producing Iidustry.

Tiheb basic tndersndims o? tilie Donic%,tle lqugar I'andteur-s' Acz'twidot lili f 4officers underamand, tire proee(ly Idenfleal Wil tlosi oif the Anue ii~ 'surnlProdtt 31imufnetmer.4. anl they have' authorized me to Invite yd..r orgoini- 8'/.ifion to join Willi u!4. am i meit'ei orgatiulw4tion)In iii ~fl'fo0rt.

On our own parit It 1.4 the sentiviid of out'. ivasuellatn thilt we woauh.1 nilIvhy watsvalute thle force youtr ori't~n!utioni. as an auimh.,, Wouhld gIve ti file weirk ahtud ror us. oIf flit, matter %evm,4 prateflcable ft you, I Would bie gind to eall tin you ofS,with other Elficerns of our it.-soelation. tn go Into more defall. for If vou :orre in 1*$In Ailngton lit the near future I would be pileasedl to airrionge a enoe'ecebere. S 8

Thanking you for flit, favor of a uepdy lit Yours earliest Conveinienuce. I lint a daSinacerely, JOHN~ B. PYRATT. D

Your reply: DMAY 2.3. 192& size

Mr. Jon x B. I'RAVI'. tEeculire i"ce Pre-sldent Donme'~to Saganr Iroditcrs' Astoclatlon, Ste

Mr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '1"~nln D.A e.. PRvr mpeae oakoleg eep orfvro31Y z~n n. R.%T: Iam peasd toacknwlege rcelt ofyou favr oMay 25, ltiliting its to Jiuln with your ammIKlatlo l in Its efforts to stimulate theoutput of domestic qugar unt advance tile growth of thle American sugar- Mr.producing Industry.

LOBBY INVESTIGATION

We are convinced that there Is no ground for antagonisin between tile inter-ests of donestlc cane and beet sugar producers and the AMnerican corn growersand corn-sugar manufacturers. I should be very ~iitsed to nIccept your Invi-Iitloin to insect with you 1nd other officers 4,f your iissechit ion either In XewYork (or Washington, its iay bt convenient. My present engiigenitnts are suchthat I %youi niot be avalhlblo until after June 10. lease be good enough tolet fie know Wh(en you fire In a posith1 to fix a definite time.

Now, I rect' to the letter of Mr. Cole, in which he says "they,"meaning the J)omestic Sugar Producers' Association: " They arewilling to help us get our rights for the help that we can give thentif we should ever fet our farm organizations back of corn sugar."

When he says: They are willing to help us get our rights , I sup-so he referred to this pending legislation about which we havebentalkmi,.Doctor ACTncIT. Yes. That was my inference.Senator 11Am.s of Montana. "They itre willing to help ts get our1

rights for the help that we can give them if we should ever get ourfarm organizations back of corn sugar."

What effort has been made in this direction?Doctor (,%T6ucirr. Tllt letter was written before the farm organi-

zations had gone on record us supporting this legislation. I want tosay that the farm organizations have been exceedingly conservativeabout this matter on account of representations which were made totheir executives that this would destroy or weaken the pure foodlaw. They hesitated to go on record because of that contingent.After having convinced themselves of the fact that that was not theCase, that the pure f6od'law would not be affected, weakened, ordestroyed in any way, then they took the stand that they did.

Senator WASul of Montana. Well, you diverge from ihe question.Doctor CATHCARIT. It is not my intention.Senator WAVLsh of Montana. "le says, "They are willing to help

us get our rights for the help that we can give them if we shouldever get. our farm organizations back of corn sugar," and I asiedyou what effort you had made to get the farm organizations backof corn sugar.

Doctor CATJCAinT. The efforts that I have made? Well, the lprin-cipal effort which I made wits accepting the invitation to appearbefore that committee at their ineeting.

Senator WAL u of Montana. Anything further? You say thatwas the principal effort you made. What were the other efforts?

Doctor CAT ICAT. Wel, I have talked with the representativesof farm organizations, Senator, whenever opportunity offered.

Senator W,%Lqj of Montana. Could you tell us some of them?Doctor CA nTnC r. I have talked with Mr.---Senator WAsin of Montana. I am speaking now, of course, as of

a date prior to the (late of this letter, May 2,9 1928, but, let that go.Doctor CATiCART. I could not place dates.Senator WALSH of Montana. Very well.Doctor CATICART. I am quite frd'nk to say, and I want to empha-.

size when I am saying it, that I have spoken to representatives ofother agricultural organizations.

Senator VAtsn of Montana. My question was who were thoserepresentatives?Doctor CATticART. I have spoken-had several conferences with

Ur. Brenckman of the National Grange. I have had one or two

1249

1250 LOBBY INVISTIOATIONvery short talks with Mr. Taber who is master of tile National(]range. I have also had one or two conferences with 'Mr. Ilolman.His organization, I think, is the Farners' Union, or something likethat. In other words, I have been very glad to have these disu ,&Sonsand this wl.ole matter put in the llelight as nuclh as possible.

Senator WArsit of Montana. He says: "They are willing to helpus get ouri rights." Just what help did you look for frolm theseorga nizations, Doctor.

Doctor CA-rneCAr. Well, we realized in the beginning that if thiscorn sugar proposition was brought forward directly as qun industrialmeasure, timt there would not be anything to it; it was necessaryto show the agricultural. interests that it was more important to tcthem! than it was to us, and that when the agricultural interestsrealized (lint situation and became interested in it, that we shouldfade out of the picture and be absolutely inactive, and that theywould carry it on.

Senator W .sr of Montana. But you were speaking about thelielp you were to get from them. What help did you expect'to getfrom them?

Doctor CATICAnT. The help would consist in having these organi.nations minake it their issue and their fight, rather than llr.

Senator WAI. sn of Montana. What kind of a light did you expectthem to carry o?

f

Doctor CATximr.lrr. At that time, we had been led to believe thatthere was opposition on the part of the cane and beet sugar people thtowards this. That would lie one opposition. There was also avery definite oppo-iftion oin the part of the )epartnient of Agricul.ture, anl there was also very vociferous and bitter opposition o the Dpart of the honey producers.

Senator WiM.s of Montana. Apparently you thought that their 0argunents would be more effective than your own.

Doctor CvTMw.Ainr. Tile agricultural argunients would be moreeffective than out. We were not in any distress.

Senator W.AJsii of Montana. This was to be a give and takeproposition as I understand this letter. "They are willing to helpus to get our rights."

Doctor CATIHCART. That gives that impression. tSenator WALSn of Montana. But of course, it was to be reciprocal,

because he continues "for the help that we can give then." Justwhat help (lid you expect to give them, in return I

Doctor CAT1WiAnT. Well, I would like, if you will permit me, torecur now-

Senator W. F.sm of Montana. I will be glad to permit you toanswer the question. What help were you counting on givingthem?

Dr. C.VCaUT. W.ell, I do not know that we were in a position togive then any particular help.

Senator WLSh of Montana. But, Mr. Cole was directly pledg-il you.

Docotr CATCA T. Except that the idea was to bring about a communiltv of interest, as producers of domestic sugar, as against im.ported sugar.

PrC

LOBBY INVESTIGATION 1251al Senator WALSn. of Montana. Oh, that is perfectly obvious, Doe-

tor, but the question I am addressing to you is what help were youexpected to give then I,118 Senator CARAWAY. Will you pardon me? I wish you would pleaseanswer the question. The arguments are falling on deaf ears.

Doctor CAvubcAir. Well I do not know what ilp except perhapsthey realized and we realized that both industries will benefit bytheir maintaining the present duty.c118Senator' Wimsii of Montana. M) course everybody realized that.If you had a lighter tariff you would all have profited by it.

7 J)octor CATH.UnT. The only help we expected to give them was0 to become members of their asociation and show a united front onS all matters pertaininug to sugar, as I understand it.d Senator WALsH of Montan a. Well, uny'way, did you understandY that this was a give and take proposition; that you liad entered into

an agreement with them that if they would come forward and sup.port your propositionn you would support theirs?

Doctor LATC.%1':. Iot essentially that, Senator.Senator W VrsIK of Montana. Yor attention has doubtless been

called recently to this letter of January 28, 1928, signed by you andMr. Chapin as trustees for the Associated Corn Products, and di-rected to Mr. Lippitt of the Great Western Sugar Co.

Doctor CATIICAnT. Yes.Senator WALsI of Montana. I call your attention to what is saidthere, speaking of the. conference here in Washington:An invitation was extended to Assoeinted Corn Products Manufacturers on

e half of the Domestic Sugar Producers' Association to become a mnnber ofDomestic Sugar I'roducers Assoe'latlon. It was frankly anti freely stilted thatthe producers of domestic cane and beet sugar, desired the support and cooper.-lion of tho' corn sugar manufacturers ite securing an Increased duty on inportedsugar and that they in return, through the agency of the Domestic Sugar Pro-ducers' Association, would aid and support the efforts of the corn sugar manu-facturers to remove by legislation or otherwise the governmental discriminationnow prevailing against corn sugar.

Doctor CATIICAIW. That is quite correct.Senator W.'rsit of Montana. So, you actually, made a trade with

them that if they would help you get these restrictions removed, youwould help them get at higher duty on sugar?

Doctor CIA'rlctAHT. I can not say that we made a trade. That iswhy I wanted to explain.

Senator W. ,sir of Montana. Do you mean to say that is not a cor-rect statement?

Doctor CATHCAR It is a correct statement. but it can be explainedif you will have the time and patience, by letting me state what tran-spired at this interview which occurred in Now York.

Senator WAr 911 of Montiana. I am not particularly interested inthat. If you want to explain this language I am quite willing youshould do it.

Doctor CATHCAnT. That is what I have in mind to do.Senator WALSH of Montana. If that does not mean what I stated.Doctor CATJHCAHT. It means exactly what you state. It means ex-

actly what is in that letter, but the background of it was not on thebasis of a trade. Wlien these gentlemen came to New York we ex-pressed our surprise that they were asking us to join such an associa-

LOBBY INVESTIGATION

tion, because we quite frankly told them that we did not see how wecould coopertate in an association if, as we had been informed, theywere opposed to the proper recognition of corn sugar. Then they die.claimed the fact that they Were opposed to the proper recognitionof corn sugar and were quite in accord with that position. We like. a]wise said qute -frankly and freely that obviously we were in favor of ran increased duty on sugar, and we would have been in favor of itno matter whether we %vent into that organition or whether we lestayed out of that organization, because we believed that by a coinbi.nation of tile corn sugar group p and the cane and beet sugar groups,the United States cold be made substantially independent of foreignsugar production.

Senator WMtsiI of MIontana. Those are all reasons that led you tomake the agreement?

Doctor CATIReAnIT Those were the reasons which led us to acceptmembership in the Domestic Sugar Prloducers Association.

Senator AVALSit of Montana. And that was the obligation whichthey undertook to help you-to get the restrictions upon your product t4removed? Is that correct?

Doctor CATUICAUT. That is correct.Senator WALSH of Montana. Do you approve of that method of

getting legislation, Doctor?Doctor C(ATICA1T. I do not know that I have any feeling of having

been a party to anything wrong in joining that association.Senator WAIsII of Mantanha. Well, suppose that I, being in favor

of your proposal, your legislation, but being deeply intere-sted insome legislation of my own. should make a deal with the opponentsof your legislation by which'I would agree to vote against your legis-lation if they would vote for mine, would it present itself to you in ba little different light -

Doctor CATHCemrr. I should say so.Senator WAL h of Montana. Just what difference do you see

between the agreement that I suggested and the one you enteredinto

Doctor CATIWARTT. Because as a matter of fact, as developed atthis conference, we were no longer opponents. They were notsacrificing anything to us. We were not stmrificing anything tothem. We were members of the same family.

Senator WAL'4h of Montana. Prior to that time they had renderedno assistance to you, had they?

Doctor CATIECArT. There had been no occasion for it. bSonator WAsi of Montana. They had no interest whatever, I I

mean financial interest, in the removal of the restrictions on yourproduct, had they?

Doctor CATHCART. No.Senator VALsix of Montana. Indeed, the removal of the restric-

tions upon your product would be against their financial interest,would it not?

Doctor CAT AT. To some extent, perhaps.Senator WALSH of Montana. To the extent that you would occupy,

to some extent, their market. Now, prior to that time at least theyhad been indifferent to your legislation, had they not?

Doctor CATICAXRT. I have not known that there has been any par-ticular change. They are simply not opposing it.

1252

LOBBY INVESTIGATION 1253Senator WALUS1 of Montana. But. they did agree to help you get

the legislation, did they not?Doctor (ATHOART. That was not accepted as an agreement. As

a matter of fact, the resolution that was finally passed by the Do-inestic Sugar Producers' Association merely put that association onrecord that they would not oppose.

Senator WALsit of Montana. Well, however that may be, thisletter was written, was it not, as a protest against the idea that theywere not to help you, and you were insisting that they had enteredinto an agreement to asmist you to get that legislationV Is not thatthe purport of this letter?

Doctor CAtTr1oAtT. That letter-Senator WA.sn of Montana. Is not that the purport of this letter?Doctor CATUCAnT. Will you state that again, please?Senator WAIs of Montana. Is not this letter in substance a pro-

test upon your part against such an interpretation of the agreementas is suggested, namely, that the real agreement was that they wereto help you get legislation, and-were you not protesting against anyother construction of the agreement?

Doctor CATJIAOT. I was protesting-Senator WALS of Montana. Let me read the letter to refresh

your recollection:This position was stated positively, without hesitation or equivocation. On

these grounds, and with this definite understanding, Associated Corn ProductsMnnufatcturers accepted the Invitation to take membership in Domestic SugarProducers' Association.

That position was as you stated above:It was frankly and freely stated that the producers of domestic cane and

beet sugar deslrt the support and cooperation of the corn-sugar manufacturersin securing an increased duty on imported sugar, and that they in return,through the agency of Domestic Sugar Producers' Associatlon, would aid andsupport the efforts of the corn-sugar manufacturers to remove by legislationor otherwise the governmental discrimination now prevailing against cornsugar. Thiis position was stated positively, without hesitancy or equivocation.On these grounds ald with this definite understanding Associated Corn Prod-uets Manufacturers accepted the Invitation to take membership in DomesticSugar Producers' Association. The meeting adjourned with a spirit of mutualaccord and cordiality, after a full explantton of what was Intended by thepas.-sage of lite Capper-Cole corn sugar bills now ln the Agricullural Committeeof the United States Senate and House of fRepresentatives.

Doctor CATIJUAwr. That is correct.Senator WALSH1 of Montana. Now, was not this letter brought out

by a letter from Mr. Lippitt in which he took the position that theUnited Stafes Beet Sugar Association wits under no obligation what-ever to help youI

Doctor CATnAT. Not by a letter. That is what I had in mymind to explain.

Senator VAisn of Montana. Now. let me refresh your recollectionfrom another paragraph:

During the weeks of January 13 and January 20 there was a general gather.Ing of the cane, beet, and corn sugar Interests in Washington on account ofthe hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means of the louse of Itepre.sentatives on Schedule No. 5. In the informal dliscusslon the reluctance of theKansas City meeting developed into definite opposition.

78214-2--zr 3- 2

1251 LOBBY 1XVESTIGATIONThat is where they declined to go on record in favor of yourproposal.

The technical position was taken that the sli0cill Comilttce, had Riot Coln.sidered the question of corn sugar. Mr. Lipplitt, representing beet -sugar andclitirinun of the slpclidl coinjlttm, finally consented to call a niee/ting of thecomnittee. Mr. Keniper, proxy for Mr. ilker (etime sugar), aid Mr. Cl.inidn(corn sugar) desired to report In favor of the corn sugar resolution). Mr.Llppltt (beet sugar) stated that If this were done a minority report In oppojI.tion would be ninde. Therefore, the committee very properly agreed to Wlake qano report. Mr. Lippitt stated that he did not consider the Domestle sugarProducers' Assoeittlona obligated to support (lie corn-sugar program an" waitedto retkerve the right to object.

.Your letter was written as a protest against that view, was it not ihDoctor CATHAiinT. Exactly.Senator WI,%Ls of Montana. In other words V0u were insisting

that they had agreed to support your legislationDoctor CATHOARIT. Exactly.Senator WALSu of Montana (reading):At the present time the representatives of the cr-sugar Iudustry don notknow whether the understnndluig definitely anud clearly arrived at as a edition A

of our part fell atllg ig Don oil,,l, Sugar 1'roduuers Assoiallon is to lie fNliileitor repudiated. We wish thiu situation hirifled by action of the board as earlyas possible. is

There does not seem to be any difficulty about understanding thatletter.

Doctor CAT]WAnT. None at all. I meant it to be that way.Sienntor W.%tLU of 'Montaua. Namely. that you had entered intoa solemn agreement with them-at least an unequivocal agreement lowith the-ht you werethey reto support your legislation dDoctor C.M. .UT. 1"xcept that we were on the samte side of thefence all the time and that sinJ)ly Cstablished that.Senator VALSH of Montana. but prior to that time they had notbeen on your side of the fence, at least, they had been on top of the

fence; on the fence? ..Doctor CATI=AT. They had not taken any position. thu

.Senator WALSH of Monitana. And by this agreement they had gotdown on your side? 1 0

Doctor CQ irncAnrr. They had not taken any position although wewere under the impressioh that they had taken a position in opposi.tion. rhey disavowed that position through their representat iveswhen they met with+ us in New York. it,

Senator V.%Lii of Montaua. 'Now, to come back to the instance I Ctspoke to you about, of my own position, would you care to expressedan opinion then as to whether I would do the honorable thing or noti t4

Doctor CAT1CAnT. Well, I fail to see anything dishonorable in tiatarrangement. P

Senator IVALsIz of Montana. What would you tlhinnk of the inter- Cests of the country if legislation be carried on on that principle?

Doctor C.tTHART. I think all legislation should be carried on dis.tinctly on its merits, and the impression that I have gotten in myvarious contacts is that the Members of Congress and the Members ofthe Senate are endeavoring very strongly to do that, and earnestly todo that. I find then eager and anxitouts to get information aboutsubjects concerning which they were not suflciently informed, and

LOBBY INVESTIGATION

when they have called upon me to contribute to that information Ihave done it fairly and squarely and truthfully.

Senator WAL, i of Montana. I think probably all you can sayabout it is that you are not any worse than a good many other people.

Doctor OATicAIuT. Thank you, sir.Senator WALSH of Montana. That is all.Senator UItAWAY. Senator Robinson, do you wish to ask any

questions.Senator RoBINso of Indiana. I wanted to ask you, Doctor, what

is the difference between corn sugar and beet and cane sugar thatcauses the department to discriminate against it, as you suggest, byihat regulation?

Doctor CATHART. The pure food law-Senator 1,TALsH of Montana; Now, you are not answering the ques-

tion of the Senator. Ile asked you what is the difference between thetwo.

Doctor CtTiCART. Do yoU want to know the chemical difference?Senator Ronixsox of Indiana. Yes; that causes the Department of

Agriculture to discriminate, as you say.Doctor CATUCAR. If you just ask me what the chemical difference

is, I can tell you that.Senator 1toin'sotx of Indiana. Do you know what the reason is?Doctor CATIUC.AT. I know what the reason is.Senator Roni sox of Indiana. Then, tell me.Doctor CATJC.mT. That is what I started to do.Senator CMIAWAY. Let us just tell it, then, without going into a

long explanation. Just tell him directly. There is an answer andyou can make it, you know. He asked you why the department madethis regulation, and you said you could tell him. Now, just tell him.

Doctor CATIWAnT. I don't know-well, I tfiink I will put it thisway: The'definitions and standards under which the pure food lawis administered are said to be based upon custom. 'I he definitilonsand standards follow custom, but do not lead custom. Sugar, underthose definitions, is defined in such a way that only sucrose, whichis the hemical name for cane and beet sugar, is sugar. As a materof fact, there are hundreds of sugars. Corn sugar or dextrose is atrue sugar, but isn't included in that definition. Therefore, fromthe standpoint of these regulations, it is not a sugar. Now. then,whenever tiny article of food is defined, in which slgar is used. theword "sucrose " is put in parentheses, after the word "siga'r ," lim-iting the use of sugar to sucrose. making it necessary for anyone whocares to use dextrose or corn sugar as an ingi'edient in such productto put it on the label. So far as the consuming public is concerned,you might as well put "arsenic" on the label, because the consumingpublic has been educated to believe that label mention is intended tocall attention to a deleterio)us. injtriou., inferior ingredient; and cornsugar is not in that class.

Senator RoBiNsow of Indiana. How extensively is corn sugar man-ufac:ured in this country.

Doctor CAT1CAInT. When I am talking now about corn sugar. I amtalking about the pure, highly refined dextrose. The production inthis country now will be around 100,000,000 pounds.

Senator 'RoniNsoN of Indiana. Do I understand you to say thatthis sugar from corn can he used wherever beet sugar ani cane

1255

LOBBY IN VESTIGATION

sugar can be used, if you can get tile regulation removed? Is that'ilnt you menu?Doctor CrW'irr. GJenerally speaking, that is correct; but more

accurately in combination with those sugars. That is why we havea unitives interest with (Ie cane amld beet sugar. In the first placecorn sugar i.s not quite so sweet as cane and beet sugar, but a combi.nation of those sugars is highly nutritious and wholesome and desir.able, because of the phy.iologicl properties of the dextrose. Everybit of cane or beet sugar you consume has to be changed to dextrosebefore your body can ntninzo it, and every bit of the starch ou con.son In'is to be changed into dextro-o before you can use it. Dextroseis the only sulgar found in the body. It. is the normal constituentof your bloodd stream. It is the only sunnar that. can be injecteddirectly into your eircuatoary system and go' utilized without goingthrough the digestive system.

Senator ('ARWA.'Y. Doctor, can YOU make it cheaper than i'hatwe know its sugar?

Doctor ('ATIHCAPT. On aCcoCunt of-Senuator CIIAWAY. No, no. Just yes or no, please.)octor C4ATUcUTn' Yes.

80n1tOr (AR.AWY.. Well, the are some questions, you know, wecan answer that way.

Doeto0 CATHCARTn'. You will pardon me, but I am so thoroughlysaturated with this corn-sngar proposition it is very difficult for

Senator ('.wAY. I know. Let us get the chemical reaction,though.

Doctor CTcII-wr. That is right.Senator CARAWAY. I was interested in your reply to Senator

Walsh's question that. your corn-sugar people and domestic sugarpeople met in Kansas,- Cty andi entered into at trade. That is sol

Doctor (',ATHCAUT. Well, I wasn't at that meeting-St, ltol' CARIAWAY. IVell, I Am mot asking you tia. As a matter

of fact, you know that.Doctor' CATICAIrr. It was so understood Senator.-Senator CArA wAw. All right. Let us Lave some direct answer.

As you understood it, your association was to support a higher tariffon sugar. That is sol

Doctor CATucAirr. We were getting at that, anyhow.Senator CAA1wAY. I didn't ask you that. That was part of the

agreement; you were to support a high tariff on sugar?Doctor ATIIAIT. I don't like for you to put it that way.Senator CARAWAY. That is the way you put it in your letter, and

I just wanted to know.Doctor C, TTIARiT. Well, All right.Senator CuIARwAY. Let us be candid.Doctor CATiCAIrr. We are in favor of it, and were in the be.

ginning.OenIntor C AIAWAY. I didn't ansk you whether you were in favor of

it, or got traded out of your position. That is what you agreed to.do?

Doctor CAT WART. That is what we agreed to do.

1256

LOBBIIY IN Vt1*TICATION 15

Senator CARAWA4 Y. And inl turn, as you mttdernitood it. they agieedto sliport, tile legi-shittionl that is embodied in the so-cailled "Capper-Cole billv

IPoCtor CATHRT.~~i YeS.Senator CAUAWAY. Int other words, volt gentlemen meeting in Katn-

sis City entered into it trade to affect legislationl.IDoctr O~rCmmurr. As at matter of fact-Senator CARA.WA~Y. @11A ust.elt Or 1no.J)octor CATHCART. NO:' theyV did not, lbeCatSP., as it ma~ltter of fact,

tit the 1(anislis City Imeetig they refused to adopt tile re0.40111061.Sinator ('~lAAWY. No. 110. 111'0,1 adopted it. lind YOU .aRid they

%Voelhed oil it. youl knlow. Le t s jlit get it down,1 inito tile hutgutellI11(of fle~. streets., Youl went inito it trade. 2Azwtor 'X 1,ri.nr. It, looks that wail. buit thev diduit.St1ator WVALsnI of M1ofitana11. My unlde..tamdig is til agreement

wias elltered inato before tile KlISlson C~ity tile'rItand tit tiuc KamsasCity' mneetinlg time four' slya atsiei tit i oil wantelf theml to go throughwith their "agaceienit alurthepy refused to (10so 5.

Senator Y'~Lww es; I ..,o 1uuader-Stamd thlat. Wilma I 111 gettingto i... do yout think it is in the interest of thle publie that larg, grimpusshould get. together mid1( formi ('4)nlinatioils 111nd trade on legishatioil I

D0001r CA'rnoArr. If thle legislat iOn k in thle inlterest of tile public;ves; anid this certainly is.

Senator ('umm~w 'T'hat wasn't the tjltedim)t I asked you, tid( Voltknlow that.S Dactor. Do youl thinki it is ill thle interest of the publicthat large blsiiaess ititere'ts should get together mid1( trade on legrisla-

D)octor CAvI'ncAwr-. X-0.810mi1tOr (!An.AWA~Y. IV(11l, YOU wNre dlng that whidh yout dili1 not

SJ)1imoveth en?l)oetorCATMm Iclr.o: because t his lisgislation wvas econonmically

SMuiid.SPnator CARAWAY. I AMi Hot aSkinig V01u thtat. anld V11u kn1ow it.

For tile Lord's sake. flow-yon* very-h~sl(II(vv inl autswerit it, voltkhow, caries nt untovfa blhde imprests'5ioll. 2

IAwtor CATIIU0lII. Well. I W.IliII tO di-SAIjMate thait.1 surelyI.8Senaltor C~uAWAY. WVll. youlta as1 aasw'rl tile qulestions.. Here are

powerful interests 1an1d thev got t(!gether 11nd4 entered inito all agree-talent to affect. legislat1tionl. " I will help1 Vout tit yVOIrls. 111111 Youi lci)tie( get ndnle." You saly vout do01t apProve of thalt ?

Doctor CA~THCA~RT. 14don1t at))ptO1' Of that ; 110.Sena1tot' ('.Aimwxy. Aliul if legislation could be' e'trried 4)11 bky that

1)lo)L'C, thpeil thei lpubli(' Weal nImst Suffer, l111151 it not?IDoetor Cexiw.u-mlr. Not tiocm. satrily. lbeeait.se it Call be goodu Jegisla-

tiota.Sinator C~~ARWAY. Yes: buit theta if it is gOOd legiSlation,. Wily

thle nueessity of getting together andl trading onl itDoctor CxvrnAet1rr. Wer 1,01 .;eeCSena~tOl' C~tA.H1AY. No. It;, It;). MIA,' Start off with Iantlter. lee-

ture. That is thle fault *of yoil school men. You get so you wantto lecture uts aill, anid we witilt, just nit aliswer. Why is it necessaryto get together idu trade if both of your propositions were goodpropositions in thle public interest?

1257

1258 1.0011Y NVESTIOA'TIONDoctor C0' 1 'Anr. There ought not to be. theSenator CAY. You don't- whiDoctor CyrItc.orr. It ought not to bis. CapSenator CARAA. You know, T)oetor. its a matter of fact, if L

legislation shoul be traded on, the rights of the public eventually tinumust suff1er, must they not !

I)octor CAi'.urr. 'I am not sufficiently versed in legislation to sayanything about that.

_enator O t, I thought you were an ex pert.Doctor CATHC(AiT. Not on legislation: no, sir. BIutt on iinciple, Wlw

I would say yes. toSenator C.nRw.w. I thought yo were intereste(l. in giving to let

Menibers- of Congrems valuable- information. Sl)octor Cl ic~n'r. Not on lgislation. I can not qualify in that it. e

respect. 1.Senator ('AwRAWv. You just qulify in trading on hgiSlttion lettl

affecting sugar. You never put this agreement in the newspapers,did you ' It would have made a very good news item. but you never Siput it in the newspapers. cow

Dotor CATHCArT. I think there was some reference to it in tilepress.

Senator CARAWAY. Setting out your agreements?Doctor C.ArrC'rIT. There was no agreement set out, except a verbal que

agreement.Senator CAn.RwAY. You set it out pretty plainly here. I don't don

care whether it was verbal or written. I say you never sought any Spublicity for that agreement? %8,

Doctor CArlC.ART. I can't say I did. It. would not have been nmprovince.

Senator CARAWAY. I didn't ask you whose province it was, but Isay you didn't seek it.

"J)octor ',wurr. I di(ln't avoid it. I would hauve been glad to letit be known. S

Senator CARAWAY. You could have gotten" a headline on that any cntday b. saying, that the sugar interests got together on the Capper.Cole hill.

Doctor CATHCART. That shows how inexperienced I tun in those agomatters. I

Senator CARAWAY. No; I think it shows how artful you are in IVthose things. Let me ask you another question. Did you inform aIeCongressman Cole you had gotten together and made this agree. Thement f

I)octor OATHT., He brought us together.Senator 'ARnAIwAY. Did you tell him what your trade was?Doctor C ATICART. Sure.Senator CARAWAY. Did you inform Senator Capper about that? PoeDoctor CATIWART. We were in agreement; yes. mySenator CARAWAY. You told them you had traded on tariff and the

Capper-Cole bill? ColDoctor CATHCART. I never told him any such thing. It wasn't a I

trade. We found we were both on the same side of the question doandi absolutely in accord. .

Senator CA'IIAWAY. You said that yourself, Doctor. You impeach groyour own letter. You said you hail a fair and square agreement, Cat

LOBBY INVESTIGATION

tile result of which was you were going to support their measure,which was tariff, and they.were to support yours, which was theGaipper-Cole bill.

Doctor CATHCART. It was the understanding that we were to con-tinue along the course we had mapped out already.

Senator CAnAwAY. That Was not what you said.Doctor CATHCART. You See, Senator, you have got me in a hole--Senator CARAWAY. I know it.Doctor CATCART. Because you haven't allowed me to tell you

what led up to this thing, and I don't want to tell you what led' upto that letter. I am not retracting one word in that letter. 'Thatletter is there and I stand on it. "

Senator CItIAWAvY. If you wanted to, you couldn't get away fromit, could you?

D0tor CATiHCAIT. There are circumstances which led up to thatletter.

Senator CARAWAY. I know that, and the publicity it has gottensince makes it a very undesirable thing. I know that. Now, as aconsideration for their withdrawing their opposition to your bill,how much money (lid your association put upI

Doctor CATICAUIT. 3one as a consideration for that.Senator CARAWAY. Well, how much did you put up? That is a

question I don't thing the public will have any doubt about.Doctor ('ATHAnT. That is a matter of record, and something I

don't know anything about.Senator CARAWAY. Would you be interested to know you put up

$8,400?Doctor CAIUAUT. What is that?Senator CARAWAY. Would you be interested to know you put up

$8400?Doctor CATIcAtwr. I shouldn't have any particular interest in it,

because if that is the figure that is reported, it is correct.SenatorCRwAY. You may be interested to know you put up 40

cents more than that. You put ti) $8,400.40.Doctor CAT'rncAT. Let me get that clear.Senator CARAWAY. NOW, wait a Minute. You winut to lectureagain.Doctor CATICART. NO; I do not. I want to tell you something.

I want to tell you that the Associated Corn Prodiutets As.-ociationare the ones that are members of the )onestic Sngar Association.The Ass-ociated Corn Products Manufacturers cotsist of 11 Coal-panie-s situated in the ,Middle We-t who did thi.s, so that that8,400.40 was divided between 11 Companies.Senator CARAWAY. It didp't all coie out of your pocket?Dtor (A1rneCt'r. I (l t know anithMiing about i9t. ad I have no

pocket about it at ill. I wish I did.' beeau.se I would like to makemy pocket a little bigger.

Senator CA rAwAY. I suppose if they got their bill through theycouhl make it bigger, and put one or Ioth sides.

Doctor CATH[ARIIT. Well, they haven't shown any inclination todo that.

Senator CARAWAY. How was Cole and you going to get the farmgroup back of your organization? You say, as Cole's letter indi-cates, you didn't have itnything to trade on until you could get the

1259

1260 LOBBY INVESTIGATIONfarni group back of you, andi whenever you got themai ill youi' Pocket, C

,0o ldu at stake in this thing. II4)'wer W41(0tYO gon lg to gest. thein ffteCick of you ? You know that is the sigiivant Iit of it.

Doctor CA'riw~mi~ I don't think tht6 it fair wity to 1)nt i t. Wdidn't have anytlhing to, trasde onl. We don't have anything to trade var,Oil How. 188!

801nator ('AUW A Let tpt it thle wily 'Mr. Grtundy put it. I Cit-lojok upon01 hinm it-, a radher typIical, man.11 l-ie .-aih thaltopeople Nwho 6did( halve Certaitn things did( not have ally Chips ill the gaile. YOU siteknow what lie metanit? C

letolr ('ATueIART. I don't1 know anythiNg about it. WAhat wils it? sornlSelmlr C.mtivw Iidn'!t halve tily "Chips inl thle gamile. itsDoctor ('m1'riuc~~r. 111o saido thalt ; mnakSPenator1 ('ARAWAY. Mr. Gtrindy. You know what it mneans when quit

they%% Say you haven't got, ally chip-' ill thle !!iutu'? SIDoct;W CATHiCA~RT. That refers to whatI cornSenaitor. (Cmut.m . lDon't volt kiiow *? CD OCtor (.'u1C.ART. 11*ll, 1~ W(IlfliA drawv til inIfeni'e(. Stitor. 81Senator (.mwtvr That is till. 1)wtor. We uunldersi's ld eatuh other ear"

perfectly well. CTESTIMONY OF COL. JOHN H. CARROLL .0to~

(ilhe w~ittuess wats duily smorn by Senator Cartiway.) sSmuiat or ('.w.i.. Senator W1alsh, you wish to question the Ivit. fercnes~e.?abol

Senator01 WVAJAII Of Mo34tan11. Give your nametl andt res~idence to tlie 0reporter. S(!oloucl ('.innoix. My tiattuit' i; .John 1-I. Carroll 1113 k'gril and Burirot ing i'esideiiee, LUllioniIlle, I~ii~tiCouitttv M1o. I have 11, offiehtere ill Wa11shinigton ill thle 'V11asjxorhtion Butilding untd hitve( hadAive~( 191T. atiic 1 11111 -1 pralcticilig haivyeu'1.

Selitntoi' WmAlh of fol~tii. Ifaiu "oit Iit'&it iii Washington priorto that tilt, C'olomel 1 sup('oloucal ('matmaxij. Never to stay. buitt I hatve been here quite often.C

80111101- AADIE Of ' Moiatz.Wtete dlid you. Practice p~rior to 81opehtihig V0our olile' in WlshilgutolI? C('01hine) (1.uuutom. I ,TiliOnll~ihk titatli Couty3, 1No. theSentor11C1411 of M1onitana. flow la11re a towit is Unionville?

('olomuel ('.AmiOIXr. 'Iwenty-ive huin1drefrI pople, albot; I guess. var'Sonuator WALh (if 'Aoj16maiu. YOp01ened it Jim oifce here inll 170olonel (UmutIom.1. I came here iii 1917 afterI the wa oill'l o ictied. afti801tatol'1AAIS-1 Of Montanaif. D~id you c',tublish a firm hecre? V('olone4-l (.Xmuiomj. A lit-l? SehSenator' WALSI11 (If Mon01tana11. Yes.FColonel CAIZU4IoJ.t. N,\o; I (Jidl not. I came over here, as a tite~rC

of fact, Senaitor, and you probably know-I have repreisen~ted theChicago. Burlington Lt Qultucy( Rauilroad~ for 47 veairs, tile Northern aisoPacific for nea'l y 30 years, and the Great. Xoitheri forl 25i years, andand that I gave ulthree years ago, and I C111110 here Ilarigelyf to look Burafter tile variouts things that the railroads had for mel to dto. C

Senator AVALSU1 Of Mfontna. What wats the character of the work 81you (lid for those companies prior to your coming to Washington? the

C011

LOfBY IN VE1TOATION12

Colonel (,%nt'oLt,. Well, I had more or less to do with looking8fter-Oh, before?Senator WVA!. sI of Montana. Yes.

Colonel CA ROLL. Well, I did a large amount of legal work invariou.- ways, and in tIle early eighties or about 1880, 1887, 1888, and1889, along in there. I was sent by the railroad company to JeffersonCity, Mo., to look after their legislative matters.

Senator VALsH of Montana. And during all that time you lookedafter their legislative matters at Jefferson City?

Colonel CAtIMOA,. I dlid, more or leIms, awl at other times I triedsonie cases for them. You will remember the ol Burlington Co. hadits headquarters at Burlington, Iowa, and we were accustomed tomaking inspections once a year over all of the properties, which wasquite a considerable task.

Senator WLsu of Montana. Did your work for the railroadcomlanies during that. period ever take you into the Supreme Court?

Colonel CAiItoI. No, sir.Senator WALSH of Montana. You tried some cases during the

earlier years of your association with them?Colonel CARROLL. Yes, but I have not for a long time.Senator WALSH of Montana. I am speaking now of the time prior

to your coming to Washington.Colonel CARROLL. Oh, yes.Senator WALSI of Montana. Your principal business was at Jef-

ferson City during the sessions of the legislature and travelingabout the system in one way or another?

Colonel CARROLL. Yes.Senator WALSH of Montana. Who was the general counsel for the

Burlington?Colonel CARROLL. Joseph W. Blythe.Senator WALSH of Montana. Where did he reside?Colonel CARtOLT,. Burlington. Iowa.Senator VALsii of Montana. He did most of the trial work, I

SUpI)ose.Colonel CARROLL. How is that?Senator WALSH of Montana. He did most of the trial work?Colonel CuimoL,. No: lie didn't do any of it. I think a man by

the name of Eaton, at Burlington. Iowa. and Judge Spencer, at St.Joseph, and a fellow by the name of Nelson over there. They hadvarious ones. Mr. Blythe, as far as I knoiv, rarely went into court.

Senator WA14 of Montana. Is that the Judge Spencer whoafterwards was Senator?

Colonel CAUROLM. No; afterwards general counsel. That wasSelden Spencer who was-the.Senator.

Senator WALsh of Montana. But you very rarely got into court?Colonel CARROLL. No, sir; I did not.Senator WALsM1 of Montana. Coming here, you still retained your

association with the Burlington, and then with the Northern Pacifieand the Great Northern, by reason of their association with theBurlington?

Colonel CARROLL. Yes.Senator WALSh of Montana. And just what was the character of

the duties that you dis.charged here as representing those railroads,Colonel I

1261

1262 LOBBY INVESTIGATIONColonel CA~nROL. Well, we had various things. Legislative mat. i

tes is the only thing that I recall at all, but we had occasionally to literget a bill to cross a navigable stream, and the Northern Paeific Beerand the (reat Northern were more or les interested in the develop.ment of tile (Ilacier National Park, as you must recall yourself. We Belwere very much interested in the development of the Eager irriga.tion project, and I think for many years we went over tMose reda.ilation projects. so

Senator WAx~rn of Montana. Were you looking after their in.terests before the Congress? lie4

Colonel CARROLL. Yes.Senator WALSU1 of Montana. And I suppose before the depart. to111

ments? wellColonel CARROLL. Yes. eSenator WALSH of Montana. Have you done any work in court we

since you have been here? eColonel CARROLL. I have not. bSenator WLsH of Montana. You have a partner now, have you been

not, Colonel? giveColonel CARROLL. I have not. I have an associate. I have no opartner. I have a young man named Baker who helps me. in C

Senator VAistzs of Montana. '1 hat is not in tile nature of a part. Mentnership, however? land

Colonel CARROLL. No. sir. in dhSenator WALst of Montana. Mhat particular department have and

you appeared before? wai Colonel Cumo.r,. W ell, I have been in the Interior Department 4 abo,

great deal. I represent the Royal Dutch and Shell Co.'s and all their advisubsidiaries in the United States, and they have large busines.- with Oubreference- to leasing of land and that sort of bitisiess. I think I had (ub..olie business there in the last 10 years. to d

Selnatolr WAL.SH of Montana. 'fhie Inte state Coiniteree (Cois. i0 dsion? I wV

Colonel CAt 1OmLL,. Yes. Nearly lil these railroads have their titlespecial Interstate Commerce counsel, hut they come down to my Vtlolliee and I assist them in briefs and so forth. I wi.

Senator WIASn of Montana. Was your work before these depart- Semenots in the nature of submitting briefs, Colonel? $10s

Colonel CARROLl. Well, if Ineces,.'V. When yol Ililike till applica.tion for the lease of oil lands, we ld for a long time a controversy, n46Senator, and you must bt familial with it-inder the land leasing ccact tlere was a prohilbtion of foreigners. getting titles tles they Clived in a.coulntry that gave recilrociv. Te Royal l)utch had an

lt C etoolll C., had ill appi cation St.in i'or a lease of Indian lands that was thrown out by lall. I don't legssupIl)O:e you want tile to go into the details of it Ci

Senator WATAs1i of Montana. No, no. HolColonel C1utnoLx,. 1111t more recently the larger problem has been

to see that they were qualified under the la f leasing act to lease, iand that has only been settled within a year that olland is. i h

Senator WAL14lI of Montana. Colonel, colld you refer us to any Witbriefs that you have prepared in these matters? . a,

Colonel CARROLl,. I don t think I preparedd any briefs. I think you an awill find some letters down there that I have written to them, and spoke

LOBBY INVESTIGATION

I think our arguments were always oral before Secretary Fall, andlater Secretary Work. I haven't had anything to do with the newSecretary.

Senator WAIsnI of Montana. We had some information here, Colo-nelt that jon are now employed by the Cuba C).

looneI'CARROLL. Yes. I have been employed by the Cuba Co.,and by--I don't know whether it is a sugar association or what.

Senator WALqu of Montana. The United States-Colonel CAmRoLL. The Cuban interests, represented by Mr. Lakin.

lie is president of the Cutba Co., and he called on me and wanted meto assist them in their efforts to get the tariff lowered on Cubansugar. I didn't, as a matter of fact, want to (o it. I am not verywell and haven't been, and my wife was in the hospital.

Senator WAIsn of Montana. Your health has been rather infirmrecently, for the last couple of years?

Colonel CARROLL. Oh1, yes. My wife has been very ill, and I havebeen half this summer in bed myself, but I am not making anyapology about that. I finally agreed to take this work if they wouldgive me a retainer of $10,0 0, and then Lakin took up the subjectof what is known as the Barlow and other claims that he has downin Cuba, generally referred to as claims against the Cuban Govern-ment. It is really a dispute as to the title between himself and otherlandowners, and lie claiming all the time that he could not get justicein the Cuban courts, that they were dominated by President Machado,and no American of his type could get justice down there, and liewanted me to make a thorough investigation of that. I had heardabout it before, because for about 10 yea s I have been the legaladviser of the Cuban emba sy here, and he thought I knew aboutCuba, and lie wanted me to do that. and I said, "Certainly, I woulddo that." " What will you charge?" " W ell, What do you want meto do?" "This is what I want you to do." I said, 1 I will have tomake two or three or fon trips to Cuba and stay there some time.I will have to have a Cuban lawyer of experience to look up'thosetitles and all that." I said, "Vell, all, right; if you will pay mev4,500 a month until this work is finished, I will undertake it; andI will go to Cuba just as quick as I can."

Senator WALSH of Montana. As I understand it, Colonel, the$10.000 was for service in connection with tariff legislation, and the$4.500 a month represented your compensation for orvices in con-nection with this Cuban matter?

Colonel CAHROLL. In connection with the Cuba Co., I was to dowhatever they wanted me to do.

Smnntor WVALSU of Mo tan. Whlat didi you do so far as the tarifflegislation is concerned, Colonel?

Colonel CAmDHOLv,. Well, I told Mr. Lakin and Mr. Shattuck thatI would be very glad to advise with thezi and to help them. TheHouse had passed a bill recently raising the rates on sugar. and Isaid" I think under our Constitution you have the right to peition."I think that is the very first one of the Bill of Rights. And I said,iI think we can get--everything should be in the open. You canwrite letters, and Mr. Shattuck, being an expert on sugar, is to makean address to the committee." And, as a matter of fact, I have notspoken to a single Member of Congress, of either House, aboutsugar; not one.

1263

LOBBY INVESTIGATION

Senator WAlSH of Montana. Have you done anything else, Colonel? C('oonel ('t1 At,.L1. No. sir. I iven't. exCopt to advise th.fie hI 1en. ish

It is a matter I hate to'refer to agnin but I have been pretty feeble 8all summer and I have not been of much account. But I 'ant to ofgive you till the information I can.

SeltOr WAL411 of Iontana. Well, so fair at the tariff legislatio ..is c incerned. all you di(l was to advise and counsel with Mr. Shat. injtuck and Mr. Lakin? As

Colonel CARROLL. Mr. Shattuck and Mr. Lakin and I never talked 8with any Senator about it. or solicited1 a vote one waiy o1 the other. the

Senator WAL~M of Montana. And with respect to the otlr branch doesof your employment. Colonel. in connection with Barlow and the peqother mixed Cuban claim, what have yon done in that matter? C

Colonel CARROLL. Well. I have not done a great deal about it. In Barthe fil-t place, I got ready to go to Cuba. Mrs. Carroll got ill, and andI had to stay here. and when I got her up to her country houe. I istrafell by the wayside and was laid up in the house for a month with thinsome fraetured ribs, so I have nnt been able to get away. but I intend Seto go. My plans have been made twice. I have got thm made nowto leave here Sunday night for a month's visit to Cuba.

Senator WAlsi of Montana. Just how does Mr. Lakin come to beinterested- on either'one side or the other of the Barlow claini? prf

Colonel CAnmouai. Well, I think it is not so much the Barlow claim, Cbut the Cuba Co.1 as I understand, bas an invetinent of soietiing thinlike $170.000,000 in Cuba. They atre veri greatly interested in the fnisadministration of President Machado. They. as I understand, think Srhe is making a good President. I know the' President very well my. espeself. I brought him to this country before he was President. Now CI know him very well, and I think he is making a fine President, but, anif the story circulated about him is true, lie is unfit to be President hadof Cuba. cont

Senator WATASh of Montana. What I don't understand quite Seclearly, Colonel Carroll, is just exactly what you were to do in the Cubmatter.

Colonel CARROLL. Well, I was to go down there and try to get some Soevidence and proof so that if this matter was taken up by tile Senate OrCommittee on Foreign Relations I would be ready to make an answer. SolI must tell you, I must be perfectly frank about it, so that you Cal dayunderstand my relations; sitting in my house one evening, SenatorGeorge Moses called and said lie wanteI to see me. and he came down Soland said, 1You atre -ery interested in Cuba." ISaid " Of course, I o. B.am, especially Machado and his administrationn" and he said, "Well, Cothoy tire charging, making very serious charges against Machado and tere.his government." Ohio

At this point Senator Borah entered the committee room.) briefColonel CARROL, (contlluing). I asked hi,. "What are they" Sel

Well, they are liable to go be ore the Senate Committee on Foreign brieiRelations in time." "Could I have a copy?" He said lie would give Come a copy. He sent me a copy of those resolutions, the preamble of qewhich contained one charge after another against the administration Coof Machado. The

Senator W.VLsit of Montana. They were all lublished in the paper thinweren't they. Colonel? empi

1264

LOBBY INVESTIGATION 1265relf Colonel CARROLL. Yes; they were all published. I had them pub.

"c" lished myself.Nble Senator VALsui of Montana. Now, does that constitute the extent

to of your work?colonel CARROLL. Up to this time that is all I have been able to

do, but I want to go down there and investigate for these people thereal claim that Barlow has. I want to go into the question of title.As I understand it, the question of-

cod Senator WALs Hof Montana. Let me understand how Mr. Lakin, orer. the Cuba Co.) becomes interested in Darlow's claim. What differencen h oes it make to them whether Barlow sustains his claim or l-he other-he people who are protesting it?

Colonel CARROLL. They tell me they are not interested per se in theIn Barlow claim, but they aire interested in Machado's administration,and and Barlow or his friends are making this charge against the admin-. I istration. of Machailo, which these people think are not true and theylith think it is their business-

?nd Senator WALSH of Montana. What can you do about it, Colonel?-oN Suppose Machado is a perfect tyrant, what can you do about it?

Colonel CARROLL. I can't do anything, Senator.13 Senator WALSH of Montana. On the other hand, suppose he is aperfectly wise president, what can you do about it?im, Colonel CARROLL. I don't know. I am not claiming I can do any-thi~n, but you are asking me these questions, and you did not let meh nehn, What we tre trying to get at is-Senator WALsH of Montana. What I want to know is what theyelected of you and what you expected to do for them.ON Colonel CARROLL. I am telling you, I expected to go down there

ut, and make a personal investigation of this Barlow claim myself. Ihad heard more or less about it and the various charges that werecontained in this preamble to the resolution I have just referred to.lite Senator WVALS[ of Montana. You said you have represented the

be Cuban Embassy for some ten years.Colonel CmROLL. Yes.

mne Senator WALsm of Montana. What salary do you get from them?ate Colonel CARROLL. I think they pay me $4,800 a year.*r. Senator WALsH of Montana. There was something said the other!ft day about your representing the B. & 0.or colonel CARROLL. Yes; I am the counsel for the Baltimore & Ohio.

wfl Senator WALSH of Montana. That is the Baltimore & Ohio; theI . B. & Q., and the Northern Pacific? Colonel CARnoLL. I am special counsel in their consolidation mat-

nd ters. I am also the counsel for the Erie Railroad, the Chesapeake &Ohio, the Hooking Valley Railroad, to amist in preparing theirbriefs and making the arguments for consolidation of railroads.Senator WVALS, of Montana. Have ypu prepared any of thosebriefs?ye Colonel CARROLL. We are at them now, working all the time.Of Senator WALsH of Montana. They have other counsel here?

onl (olonel CARROLL. No. not in Washington. not to my knowledge.They may have. I am Mr. Willard's personal representative. I (dthink that former Interstate Commerce Commissioner Hall has beenemployed.

1266 LOBBY INVESTIGATIONSenator WALSH of Montana. He has been employed also? SeColonel OARROLL. Yes, I think so. referSenator WALSH of Montana. That is all. rcSenator BORAH. I take it, Colonel, that you were using the Bar. Selow claim as a kind of a test as to whether the administration in claimCuba is what it ought to be or notI CoColonel CARROLL. Oh, no. I was not using it at all, Senator. It Sojust came up. I have known about the Barlow wiaim I think three CI

or four years ago, and I talked to you about it, along with the Smith Seclaim, find I have known more or less about it, but at this time, early Coin April. Mr. Lakin told ine about these various stories that were an,"lbeing cir culated. - SeSenator BoHAM. The reason I ask you that question, it seems that CoLakin himself has no financial interest in the Barlow claim. SeColonel CAnomJ,. Oh, no; none in the world. s toSenator BORAH. Then, why should Lakin be employing you to look elointo the Barlow claim? down

colonel l CARJOL. He said his company was interested in defend. is the_ing Machado, and that was the. reason he got me. t, anSenator BOR.i. Therefore the Barlow claim is a kind of a key to of thtile success or failure of the Mtlihdo ml(iministration? Sen

Colonel C.uMuOL,. Perhaps. It might be the answer to the whole Col,question. But you will understand, Senator, that in this preamble- SenI don't know who wrote them. I only know where I got them-and isin justice to Senator Moses I asked whether I might tell the truth Collabout it to this committee and he said I night. You can get it from Senhim. I don't know where lie got it. But these charges set out in Sendetail facts that, if true, would compel another intervention, which Y1gthese American property" owners down there don't want. SolSenator BORA. Blut Lakin was interested in mnaintaininov tileGovernment? n eign

Colonel CRROLL. Sustaining the Machado government. ColSenator Bom.ri. You were interested, therefore, in investigation you w

the Barlow elaim from the standpoint oe sustaining the Government SelColonel CARROlL. Sustaining .aclhdo; yes. lie and I have been little tpersonal friends for a great many years. o tSenator BoR.M. Do you know how many peol)le were interested for th(

in tile Barlow claim from that standpoint? SenaColonel C,,mWOI.Lr. No; I do not. ColoSenator BORAH. There seems to have been a good many, You are me $2

legal adviser of ete Cuba Eiinbassy CnColonel CARROLL. Yes. Co (Senator BoR.M. How intimately are you informed as to the action single

of the Cuban Embassy with reference to sugar matters in this April,country tion ofColonel CAitoLr,. They have never spoken to me on the subject of That %sugar. As a matilter of fact, the ambassador has been away all sum. now.mer and only recently returned. I have never been asked to do Senaanything about it. other

Senator BORAi. Then, your employment with the embassy had cons.Itnothing to do with the sugar tariff? Colo(olonel CARROLL. No, no. That was just such advice as they might Iembewant. They

here.

LOBBY INVESTIGATION

Senator BoIRAI. It had no relation to any particular activity withreference to legislation?

Colonel CAROLL. No; none whatever.Senator BonAU. Are . ou going to Cuba to look into this Barlow

claim?Colonel GARROLL. Yes.Senator Bomiul. You are going as it friend of the administration?Colonel 0CARROLL. I am.Senator BOJRA. You haven't yet had time to look into it?Colonel CAitOL,. Well, Mr. Lakin prepared a brief on the claim,

and I haven't had time to go into that at all,Senator Boimi. Mr. Lakin is a citizen of this country, isn't he?Colonel CAmOLL. Oh, yes.Senator 1301An. Just why should Mr. Lakin be employing coun-

sel to help sustain the Government of Cuba?Colonel CAIJLJI,. Well, allI know is he says they have $170,000,000

down there, and they like the administration of Machado. Think itis the best they have over had down there, and they want to sustainit, and they think this Barlow business is an assault on the integrityof the Machado administration.

Senator BoUAH. And therefore they employed you?Colonel CAUROLL. Yes.Senator BoR.ir. To go into that matter from the standpoint that

it is an assault?Colonel CAMROLL. Yes.Senator BojiAit. Are you going to make a report to Lakin when

you get through investigating the Barlow claim?Colonel CAnitoi,,. I am.S.nator Bon,%n. Will you send a copy of that report to the For.

eign Relations Committee?Colonel CARROLL. I will be very glad to do so. Senator Walsh,

you were talking to me, and I ought to say this:Senator WALSH of Montana. You may remain seated.Colonel CAlUOLT., Pardon my apparent feebleness. I am just a

little tired; that is all. I want. to say this; that I make no apologiesfor the big fees they pay me. None at all.

Senator OARAWAY. I should think you would boast about it.Colonel CQJJtoL,. I am not braggiuig about it, if such people pay

me $2,000-Senator WALJts Of Montai-ti. Well, I congratulate you.Colonel CA11no1.L. I want to tell you, Senator Walsh. the greatest

single day's earnings I ever got in my life was on the 15th day ofApril, 1865, selling nowspapeis iving an account of the assassina-tion of Abraham Lincoln. I male $&.0 in little 5-cent paper money.That was the greatest day I ever had, twice over what I am gettingnow.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Colonel, i'1 your employment by theseother railroad companies besides the so-called Hill group on thisconsolidation matter alone, or do you represent them-

Colonel CARnOLL. The consolidation only. I should say I am amember of what is known as the Railway Txecutives' Orgnization.They have a president and a general counsel, Mr. Thom, who liveshere. They also have a legislative or law committee. I think they

1267

LOBBY INVESTIGATION

call it a law committee. I am a member of that law coinmittee in therepresenting the Northern Pacific Railway. But they haven't asked to theme to do any legislative work, and I haven't done any. Tile only 0 ething I have done in Washington since the war was when the r resenroads were taken over I went along with them to the Government inand I assisted John Barton Payne in getting a law passed to regu. i lettSenlate the railroads while under Federal control. That is all the beforelegislative experience I have had. Colk

Senator WALSmH of Montana. When was this that you brought SenaPresident Machado here f Colo

Colonel OAR OLL. Well, it was in April or May, 1025. He was Sentelected in 1924, and inaugurated in May. It was between his anythi-election and inauguration. Colo

Senator WALsH of Montana. You were likewise somewhat instru. Senamental in bringing Queen Marie here, were you not I thing t

Colonel CARROLL. Yes. I helped carry her around. CooSenator CARAWAY. Were you about the only one that was left on employ

the train by the time they got through tie trip? 0 erstColonel meROLL. I don't know whether I was. We brought her uncerstback all right. Sah

Senator OARAWAY. I know you d!d. I want to ask you a question Cln Shplease, Colonel. I judge you are interested in the investigation ol Senthe so-called Barlow claim as hostile to Barlow. You are not trying workingto establish Barlow's contention, but to disprove it? Cuba (J

Colonel CARROLL. Oh, yes. I am trying and intend to try in what. Colonever way I can to maintain and sustain- of Mr.

Senator CARAWAY. The Machado government o SenatColonel CARROLL. The Machado government, as I would if an Shattue

assault was made upon my own country. ColonySenator CARAWAY. The reason I ask you this question-I don't Senat

know whether there was anything said that I ought to have gotten ploymenthe impression, but I got tile impression from Mr. Lakin that he Ctolonjwas interested in establishing the Barlow claim. I evidently was in ill sumarerror about that. I don't know that he said anything here from Senatewhich I should have drawn that inference, and Isee now that lie for yourhas employed you to try to defeat the Barlow claim. colonl

Colonel CARROLL. Yes. Senat(Senator RoBzsoN of Indiana. Colonel, when did you receive the Colone$10,000 retainer? SenateCon01el -CAMoLL. When? since th,1Senator Ronizsox of Indiana. When ? ColoneColonel CAROLT,. Well, I don't know. I think it was in May Senato

or June. in six molSenator Rbsnsox of Indiana. Of this year? ColoneColonel CARitoLL. Yes. taken abcSenator Ronixsox of Indiana. That was for work in connection Senato

with the tariff? regularlyColonel CARnOLL. Yes. ColonelSenator Ronmsox of Indiana. What were you expected to do? SenatorColonel CARROLL. Well, Mr. Lakin said he only wanted me to Colonel

advise and counsel with them about it. As a matter of fact, I was Senatornot able to take any active part, but I advised and sat down with rst mone,them, and we agreed that everything that was done should be done 78214.

1268

LOBBY INVESTIGATION

in the open. I thought we had the right to express our grievancesto the Congress, and, as I stated awhile ago, Mr. Shattuck was topresent it to the committee and Lakin, as president of the CubaCo., and had this large interest in sugar plantations, was to present itin letters to the Congress and to the Senate and to the public.

Senator RoBINsO of Indiana. Well, Mr. Shattuck did appearbefore the Ways and Means CommitteeV

Colonel CARJORu,. Yes* I think he did.Senator RoBINSoN of indiana. Or, at any rate, he filed there?Colonel OAnu0LL. Yes.Senator RoBi-sso of Indiana. Did you prepare that brief or have

anything to do with its preparati0n?1Colonel CARRoL. No, sir* I didn't have anything to do with it.Senator ROBiNSON of Indiana. Did Mr. Shattucklimself have any-

thing to do with your employment?C61onel CAtRoLL. I don't know whether he did or not. I was

employed by Mr. Lakin. Shattuck, like myself, is a hired man, as Iunderstand. Is that right?

Senator RomNsoN of Indiana. Let us just have your testimony.Wi. Shattuck has been on the stand and may be on again.

Colonel COmLo. All right.Senator RoBINsON of Indiana. For whom did you think you were

working, the United States Sugar Association or Mr. Lakin, thecubf U06.IColonel CAnnou. I thought I was working under the direction

of Mr. Lakin.Senator RonINsoN of Indiana. But you did counsel with Mr.

Shattuck?Colonel CAnBo,. Oh, yes; certainly.Senator RoBINsoN. And throughout the summer of your em-ploymentlColonel CAIOLL. Yes. I gave up my vacation and stayed here

ill summer.Senator RoBINsoN of Indiana. When did you receive the $4,500

for your monthly pay?Colonel CAnROLl. I think the 1st of June.Senator RoBiNsoN of Indiana. The 1st of June?Colonel CARRoL. Yes.Senator RoINqsox of Indiana. And you received $4,500 a month

since thfm regularly?Colonel CAnou. Yes; I have.Senator RomNsoN of Indiana. That is $27,000 you have received

m six months.Colonel CARRoLL. I will send you up a statement. I may be mis-

taken about just when I got it.Senator RoBiNsoN of Indiana. You have received the money

egularly?Colonel CI oL. Oh, yea.Senator RomosoN of Indiana. You haven't missed a month?Colonel CAitnou. Not a month, and I hope I won't.Senator RomnsoN of Indiana. And so far as you remember thet money was received in June?

78214--20--PT 3----