Mr. MARBLE. The Cargill Elevator Co.?

Mr. HOSKINS. They are on the Great Northern, I think, entirely. I guess they have 90 or 100 houses in my territory and were in the arrangement at part of them; perhaps half.

Mr. MARBLE. The Occident Elevator Co.?

Mr. HOSKINS. Well, they are a new firm that moved to the city last fall. I do not know how many houses they have perhaps a dozen. Never had any arrangements. Mr. MARBLE. The Minnesota and Dakota?

Mr. HOSKINS. The Occident? (P. 939.)

Mr. MARBLE. Is there another one here, the Minnesota and Dakota? It is a pencil memorandum at the bottom of the list [handing Exhibit No. 1 to Mr. Hoskins]. Mr. HOSKINS. No; that is not part of it.

Mr. HEFFELFINGER. Mr. Marble, our company bought that firm five or six or seven years ago. It is entirely out of existence. It was just absorbed.

Mr. MARBLE. Now, this list I have been reading from is your present mailing list for prices, or list of persons to whom you furnish prices?

Mr. HOSKINS. In a general way; yes, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. Is that one of the lists of to-day for prices?

Mr. HOSKINS. Up to a month or two ago. We make changes from time to time. We may have added a company or cut out one.

Mr. MARBLE. Do you recall any company that was on your list up to August, 1905, the time you testified that these arrangements continued to, which was in such arrangement and which does not appear on your list?

Mr. HOSKINS. No, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. Is your list practically the same now as then?

Mr. HOSKINS. Very nearly the same; yes, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. There has been no discontinuance in your office at any time because of these contracts?

Mr. HOSKINS. No.

Mr. MARBLE. That feature was dropped, but the office went on as before, except for that?

Mr. HOSKINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. Now, did all the people having these arrangements-they also got prices from you, did they not?

Mr. HOSKINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. Was it any part of the contract that they should pay the card prices? Mr. HOSKINS. No.

Mr. MARBLE. Simply a division of the grain at the point, with a penalty to be paid on the excess?

Mr. HOSKINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. And a share for the one not getting his proportion?

Mr. HOSKINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. Was there any other feature in the contract?

Mr. HOSKINS. No.

Mr. MARBLE. Were those written contracts?

Mr. HOSKINS. No, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. Oral?

Mr. HOSKINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. How often did you render statements?

Mr. HOSKINS. Once a month, generally.

Mr. MARBLE. Those statements took the form of "so-and-so elevator company to Hoskins, debtor"?

Mr. HOSKINS. No; we ran them by numbers, because it was easier and shorter to write than the name of the company.

Mr. MARBLE. And you made a statement of the amount due them and the amount due from each one?

Mr. HOSKINS. No; if they had a debit, I showed that, and if they had a credit, I showed that (p. 940).

Mr. MARBLE. Not as to any person in particular?

Mr. HOSKINS. No.

Mr. MARBLE. To whom was the money paid?

Mr. HOSKINS. To me.

Mr. MARBLE. To you?

Mr. HOSKINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. And by you distributed it to the parties entitled to it under the arrangement?

Mr. HOSKINS. Yes, sir.

Commissioner LANE. What was the total number of elevators in that arrangement? Mr. HOSKINS. I should say 40-Oh, elevators?

Commissioner LANE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOSKINS.I really could not say.

Mr. MARBLE. Perhaps 40 companies?

Mr. HOSKINS. About that, I should think.

Mr. MARBLE. These names of companies I have read do not represent that many different interests, do they? The Peavey Co., for instance, owns several of these concerns?

Mr. HOSKINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. How many of these elevators does the Peavey concern own? How many of these companies?

Mr. HOSKINS. I think two, the Monarch and the Duluth.

Mr. MARBLE. What others here are subsidiary companies of large interests?

Mr. HOSKINS. Well, the Bagley has four companies in their office and the OsborneMcMillan, I think, has three. I think generally with that exception they are single companies.

Mr. MARBLE. Single interests?

Mr. HOSKINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. Did you have charge of such arrangements as this from the beginning of the time you sent out the prices?

Mr. HOSKINS. Yes, sir; I think so.

Mr. MARBLE. And you testified that that was about 11 years ago you began?

Mr. HOSKINS. Yes, sir; 11 years ago the 1st of August last.

Mr. MARBLE. That would be the 1st of August, 1895?

Mr. HOSKINS. No-well, I guess it would-why, no.

Mr. MARBLE. The time you began sending out these prices?

Mr. HOSKINS. Eleven years ago the 1st of last August I commenced.

Mr. MARBLE. What date would that be-1895, would it not?

Mr. HOSKINS. I guess so; yes, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. And you have ever since continued this furnishing of prices?

Mr. HOSKINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. And you had charge of such arrangements for paying penalties on surplus grain purchased and dividing the grain for approximately 10 years-no; 11 years?

Mr. HOSKINS. No; 10; not more than that.

Mr. MARBLE. Yes; 10; that is right.

Commissioner LANE. Mr. Taylor informs me that there were about 950 elevators, according to your statement, in this pool. Would that be approximately it? (p. 941.) Mr. HOSKINS. Why, approximately; yes, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. How much money would you say you handled a year under this pool? How much per month? That would be easier?

Mr. HOSKINS. It varied, according to the time of year. In the busy season there would be more than in the dull season.

Mr. MARBLE. I should think a couple of thousand dollars.

Mr. MARBLE. Per month?

Mr. HOSKINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. And in the dull season, how much?

Mr. HOSKINS. Perhaps half that.

Mr. MARBLE. How much per year would that average, would you say?

Mr. HOSKINS. There are about four months busy season and eight months dull

Mr. MARBLE. That was figuring this excess penalty merely on the excess grain purchased? You had nothing to do with the grain purchased by these companies inside their proportion; you did not figure on that?

Mr. HOSKINS. No.

Mr. MARBLE. And this $16,000 a year was arrived at by figuring this penalty on the surplus?

Mr. HOSKINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. And paying it to those who had less than their proportion?

Mr. HOSKINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARBLE. Have you made your prices up in the same way from the beginning of this employment?

Mr. HOSKINS. I have always gotten them from somebody. We have a price committee that gives me instructions each day what price to give out, and I follow those instructions.

Mr. MARBLE. You do not use your own judgment as to the price?

Mr. HOSKINS. No; except in a single day when the committee is absent from the floor, and I try to handle the thing the best I could, but not over a dozen days a year that way.

Mr. MARBLE. Who now constitutes that committee?

Mr. HOSKINS. Mr. Magnusson, president of the Northwestern Elevator Co., Mr. Andrews, of Andrews & Gage, and Mr. F. J. Smith of the Osborn-McMillan offices, are the active officers. Really Mr. Magnusson and Mr. Andrews are the active men. Mr. Smith comes around almost every day; and, then, I think Mr. Marfield and Mr. Wendel are members of that committee, but never take any hand in fixing prices at all.

Mr. MARBLE. What length of time does the committee serve?

Mr. HOSKINS. Well, until some other committee is appointed, I suppose. Mr. J. F. Cargill had charge of the matter for, I should say, about eight years (p. 942).

The undisputed testimony before this committee therefore shows that in 1904, and for 10 years prior thereto, the members of the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, who were the old-line elevator interests chiefly the old-line elevators-absolutely fixed the prices to be paid for grain at over 950 stations throughout the territory tributary to Minneapolis. They not only fixed the price, but they divided the amount of grain which supposedly competing old line elevators at those points should receive. They not only did this, but they imposed penalties when a man bought more grain than he was supposed to buy, and if the grain house of the old line elevator company was vacant, it received a stipulated sum anyway.

This condition of affairs prevailed at over 950 points in the State of Minnesota.

Now, I would say a word, if I may, with reference to the newspapers: I have been accused since I came here of an unfair and partial attitude toward the newspapers and particularly the Minneapolis Journal. I wish to say that if I have offended the representative of the Minneapolis Journal, I sincerely regret it. I did not attack his integrity. I believe him perfectly sincere. I have no quarrel with him, but I do attack the Minneapolis Journal as a subservient organ. I would say further, if I may, that during the Minnesota investigation the two largest dailies, the Minneapolis Tribune and the Minneapolis Journal, in my judgment and in the judgment of every man upon this delegation, systematically and purposely falsified and perverted the facts connected with that investigation. They suppressed the truth as to the great combine. In our judgment they lent every aid to perverting and falsifying the facts as to the Farmers' Exchange, in our judgment and opinion. They have done this ever since; they are doing it to-day; and they will continue to do it with regard to this hearing.

I can understand, Mr. Chairman, the attitude of trade papers such as I hold in my hand, the Price Current and Grain Reporter, a publication published by Mr. Pickell, who is here to-day. This publication on the first page contains the advertisements of 22 hay and grain firms, three of them soliciting trades in futures. In my judgment, and in the judgment of the delegation whom I represent, this individual can not do otherwise than he is doing, oppose the cooperative movement at the terminals. His editorial policy, in our judgment, is due to the fact of his dependence on this great trade organization controlled by the grain combine of the Northwest.

The National Grain Grower, of Fargo, N. Dak., was telling the truth about this investigation, was exposing the machinations and

abuses of the combine. Then the National Grain Grower needed money; they fell into troubled financial waters. Mr. McHugh made a trip up to Fargo, and the next week the National Grain Grower was filled with his speeches and with fulsome laudations of the grain combine of the Northwest, which the week before it had exposed. Such is the power of monopoly and money.

I could never find it in my heart, Mr. Chairman, to condemn very vigorously the woman, who for very necessity of bread to eat, was forced into a life of shame. But the mere wanton, who deliberately prostitutes her virtues for desires of lust, what shall we say of her? I will not condemn Mr. Pickell and his publication. In my judgment it is controlled by the combine which it defends. I do not condemn the other trade papers, but the metropolitan newspapers, those great and powerful dailies with their assured circulation throughout the country, who do not need to bow to the yoke-in my judgment they are the strumpets of newspaperdom. They are the crawling, and the creeping things of earth. In my judgment, and in the judgment of the delegation which is here to-day, the Minneapolis Journal and the Minneapolis Tribune are controlled by the grain combine.

I will say further that within a few days after the investigation terminated at Minneapolis, the president of the Chamber of Commerce of Minneapolis, Mr. Wells, tendered a wine supper of some nine courses to four or five reporters of the Minneapolis Tribune and Journal. Judge Simpson was there; he might tell you about it. They put a number of the boys to bed right there in the hotel. They were rewarded for their faithful service. And then week after week, Sunday after Sunday, in the Minneapolis Tribune and the Minneapolis Journal you might see page after page full of the advertisements of the members of the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce; a thing absolutely unheard of until the grain combine was attacked.

Mr. Chairman, I have already exceeded my time, and I will close. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., March 9, 1914.

Representative HENRY,

Chairman, Washington, D. C.

Please let the record on the grain hearing show, following Mr. Drake's testimony, that Senator Wilson, former attorney general of this State, was not a partner of mine or interested in the fees which I got for defending the chamber of commerce in the Minnesota Legislature; that both Mr. Drake and Mr. Manahan knew this. If affidavit is desired, kindly let me know.

H. V. MERCER.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be compelled to go over to the House now, and we will take a recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

AFTER RECESS.

Mr. MANAHAN. I am going to call now a gentleman who will speak for the farmers of South Dakota. Mr. Solen, I think, can be truth fully said to be the "father of cooperative farm elevators in the United States," if not in the world. About a quarter of a century or more ago he organized the first farmers' cooperative elevator, so far as I know, in the United States, and since that time has been very active, and has the confidence of the people of South Dakota.

37214-14- -12

STATEMENT OF H. G. SOLEN, OF SOUTH DAKOTA.

Mr. SOLEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am not going to take up much of your time. There is some good reason why I am not. The previous speakers have handled the subject so thoroughly that there is very little for me to say that might be of value to the cause. There is another reason why I should not take up much of your time-I am not much of a speaker, being educated behind the plow and in the mines and on the railroad, or wherever duty called me, and that does not lead to the speaker's platform, so what I have got to say will be very brief.

I feel it is due your honorable body that I make some explanation as to who I am and whom I represent, and you will, therefore, kindly pardon me if I briefly refer to myself.

I am a member of a committee of six that was appointed by the grain growers of the West to proceed to Washington, and on their behalf lay their grievances before Congress. My occupation is that of a farmer, and I have lived in South Dakota for nearly 45 years. Our State is an agricultural State, notwithstanding that we have within our borders the richest hundred square miles in the United States, known as the Black Hills mining district. Nevertheless, the agricultural return is over 90 per cent of the total annual production of the State. That is the interest that I represent.

Accordingly, I am here to work in behalf of the farmers of my State for the passage of laws that will effectually put a stop to all gambling in grain, and especially prohibit all dealing in imaginary grain, which often makes the price less to the producer and more to the consumer. For many years the farmers of the Northwest have been asking for legislation of this character, until it appeared to them that they were practically outside of the care and consideration of our lawmakers. We are, however, determined to keep asking until we shall receive the recognition that is due us as people engaged in America's greatest industry.

Mr. Chairman, we do not feel that we are asking for anything unreasonable when we make a demand for legislation of the character named. We do not feel that we are imposing burdens upon any other industry when we ask for legislation prohibiting gambling in the things we produce, since we believe that the price of those articles is adversely affected by such gambling. Though we have often failed in the past, as I have previously suggested, to obtain relief we claim to be our due, nevertheless we have faith that the present administration, which has already done much for the common people, will give us the legislation that this country's greatest industry demands. With this hope in our minds, we are now asking you to give us this measure of long-deferred justice.

I have given a great deal of study to this economic question in my own way and I am firmly convinced that if we are to keep the American youth on the farms of this country we will be compelled to recognize their claims to protection under our laws in a measure that will enable the farmers to retain in their possession a greater portion of the wealth they produce than is at present possible. Unless this is done and the production thereby kept up in a measure equal to the .consumption we will be forced, in a decade or two, to import breadstuffs to supply American consumption.