I have disclosed to you how this man kept me from being notified. Let me just cite my case, only as an illustration of the attitude of the American people and their position in such instances. I was at home, in the night. I got a telegram from Mr. Canby, my friend, the president of the Chicago Board of Trade, and what did that telegram say? "Your honor has been attacked. Take the first train for Washington." It was in the night, gentlemen. I was not well. I had recently undergone a surgical operation on my throat perhaps you have noticed that I can not speak well. I ought not to have taken the journey. I had sickness in my family. I had promised to act as pallbearer a most solemn obligation to a dear neighbor and friend who was to be buried the next day, and at night I received this telegram that my honor had been attacked. I sat on my bedside for half an hour and did not know what to do. My wife asked me, "What is the matter?" I showed her the telegram. Now, gentlemen, she knew my physical condition; she knew what I had promised to do in the last sad rites for my friend on the morrow. She knew that my business associate was sick. But she just read those four words, "Your honor is attacked"; and I thank God, I shall ever thank God, for her answer, and for the fact that back in the country there are such American men and women. Her answer was only this, "When does the first train leave for Washington?" Gentlemen, I was on that first train, and I am here, and you may thank God, as I do, that there are men and women back in these United States who think more of their honor than they do of their health, or their family, or their own sacred obligations to the dead. Mr. Pou. I will state, Mr. Sager, in justice to the committee, this committee would have no idea of closing these hearings without giving every man who had been attacked an opportunity to be heard. There was no possibility of the hearings being closed without giving you an opportunity to be heard and make such statement as you desired. Under no circumstances would we think of allowing the character of any citizen to be assailed without giving that citizen, before the hearings closed, full opportunity to produce any matters he might see fit in justification. Mr. SAGER. And would I have been notified by the committee? Mr. Pou. Assuredly you would. Perhaps not by telegraph immediately, but the clerk of the committee would, in case any attack were made upon you, or in case an attack were made upon any man. other I think I am justified in saying any of these gentlemen, or all of them, would have been notified and an invitation given to them to come here and say anything they cared to. Mr. SAGER. I thank you, gentlemen, for that assurance, and it makes me more proud than ever of the fact that I am an American citizen. Before I stop, I wish to ask Mr. Merrill if my statement in regard to Mr. Greeley's leaving the exchange was true? Mr. MERRILL. I so understand it; yes. Mr. MANAHAN. In view of the assault made upon Mr. Greeley, the first witness called in support of the resolution of the two assaults made upon him-I think it would be only proper that he should briefly be given an opportunity to defend himself. Mr. McHUGH. I submit that the Minneapolis delegation have been assured that they would have until 5 o'clock without interruption. I was given that pledge by the chairman of this committee. Mr. Pou. If you gentlemen insist on it, you can proceed until 5 o'clock. Mr. MANAHAN. Then, at 5 o'clock Mr. Greeley will have an opportunity to reply? Mr. Pou. At 5 o'clock, unless you gentlemen would be willing to mutually agree to give Mr. Greeley, say, 10 minutes now. Mr. GREELEY. I ask that privilege at this time, in view of the attack that has been made on me. Mr. Pou. It is up to you gentlemen. Mr. McHUGH. I regret to say that I can not grant the privilege. Mr. GREELEY. That privilege is refused, as I understand it? Mr. Pou. There is no refusal of the privilege, because there is no privilege to which you would be entitled. These gentlemen have the floor until 5 o'clock. At 5 o'clock the committee will give Mr. Greeley a reasonable opportunity to be heard. STATEMENT OF JOHN G. M'HUGH, SECRETARY OF THE MINNEAPOLIS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. Mr. McHUGH. There is one other matter, the statement made by Mr. Shorthill, of Nebraska. He stated that he had some questions he wished to ask the officials of the Chicago Board of Trade and the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce. He did not read the questions, but he said they could be read and answered here. As he wishes those questions answered specifically, I am yielding the floor to the president of the Chicago Board of Trade, who will answer those questions and dispose of that matter and get it into the record. Mr. CANBY. These are questions asked of officials of the Chicago Board of Trade by J. W. Shorthill, of Hampton, Nebr.: 1. Is there a limit to the number of memberships in the Chicago Board of Trade? If so, what is that limit? A. No limit. 2. Are those memberships now all sold? A. No limit. 3. Can memberships be bought and transferred at the present time? A. Yes. 4. If so, what qualifications or requirements are required of the purchaser before transfer will be made? A. Any male person of good character and credit. 5. About what is the market value of a membership at the present time? A. $2,400 net to the buyer. 6. What are the transfer fees? A. $100. 7. What are the annual dues of a member? A. $75. 8. Does the board have a rule or policy that would prevent, either directly or indirectly, a cooperative company from having a representative to sell grain or do business on the floor and return the net profits of that business to his cooperative company to be divided cooperatively? A. A corporation may do business in its own name if two of its executive officers are members. The corporation can, of course, divide its part of the money among its stockholders whether they are few or many. Mr. MCHUGH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I find myself somewhat embarrassed in addressing you at this time by virtue of the fact that it appears that I am the only individual here addressing this committee who has suffered the misfortune to have been indicted by grand jury. The assault upon my personal reputation, however, is not one that will require to be dealt with with any feeling on my part, and I will only go into it for two purposes. First, because it happily illustrates the unfairness and lack of courtesy displayed by those-by some of those who are supporting this resolution; and second, as illustrating a grain situation which is important in this hearing and which has a bearing upon the general proposition. Although, I hope that when a statement has been made of the circumstances surrounding this indictment of which you have heard that the result may be that the testimony or evidence which I am to give will have as much credibility as the average witness that has appeared before you. A number of years ago-some eight years ago I was a member of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and in the grain commission business. At that time an organization known as the Grain Growers Grain Co. made application for membership in that organization. I was a member of the board of directors of that organization at the time of the application, and they were admitted to membership. Directly after their admission they proceeded to circularize the country west of Winnipeg, soliciting shipments from my customers and the customers of all the commission concerns, which was perfectly legitimate except in this: In their application for membership in the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, which is an organization very similar to all other grain exchanges and whose rules correspond very nearly to all of the others, they had agreed to abide by the rules of the organization which they were joining. Among those rules was one which provided for the charge of a commission, the commission charges being fixed. This organization in soliciting business sent out a great deal of literature, and among other things proposed and advertised in this literature that they would return to the shipper who shipped them a portion of the commissions in the way of a patronage dividend system which they had adopted, or would adopt, in dealing with their customers. This was, of course, a rebate of a portion of the commissions to the customer, something which I or no other member of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange could do, and certainly we protested against this matter, and it fell to my lot to make charges against this company for violation of the commission rule, in that the circular matter sent out was in fact an offer to rebate a portion of the commissions. This charge was made, and upon its hearing they were found guilty and deprived of the provisions of membership. As a result they proceeded to institute an attack upon the grain exchange, and of course the element of politics entered into all this. Later very shortly after this-an indictment was issued, and it happened to be my misfortune to be selected as one of three who were to represent the exchange. The indictment was an indictment of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and charged that the rules of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange were in restraint of trade. Mr. Pou. You were indicted as a representative of the exchange more than in a personal capacity? Mr. MCHUGH. Yes; there was no element of personality in it at all. The charge was that we three, myself as representing the exchange, and two others, one of whom was a line elevator manthat we three "et al." had conspired together, in that we had agreed There were to have certain rules which were in restraint of trade. 12 counts in the indictment, each count carrying a maximum penalty of 4 years in the penitentiary and $2,000 fine, or something of that kind. This matter was tried in the court of the King's bench for 5 consecutive weeks. After a very long and exhaustive hearing, during which time practically all the members of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange were called as witnesses, and an enormous number of farmers of the Northwest had also been called, the court declared that we three, the defendants, were not guilty, and in the report went on to state that nothing had been produced to show that these rules were in restraint of trade and that this commission rule was not in restraint of trade, simply because of the fact that the members had agreed that a minimum commission should be charged. Mr. Pou. I would like to ask you, was this indictment against you in Canada under a statute, or was it under the common law? Mr. MCHUGH. As to that I could not state. I think it was under a statute. Mr. Pou. It is held by a good many eminent lawyers that all of these antitrust statutes that we have been passing are simply declaratory of the common law. Mr. MCHUGH. I feel quite sure it was a statute, because I think in those recitals and those counts-those 12 different counts-they recited various portions of the statute. The point I wish to make is that all the processes of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and its rules and customs of the trade were brought to the attention of the court, and the court declared that we were not guilty; that its rules were not in restraint of trade. It was a complete victory for the Winnepeg Grain Exchange, in that it was enabled to and did put in force its rules, and, so far as I know, they have ever since charged to all their customers alike a rate provided for under the rules. So the complaint I had made originally was wholly sustained by the court, and the Winnepeg Grain Exchange was entirely victorious in the attack that had been made upon it. But the point I wish to make is this. I presume one man's word is just about as good as another's. I do not know what the committee's opinion is of the average grain man after hearing the testimony presented, but I want to assure you that, as I did originally, there was not element of personality in this attack at all. It was merely the trial of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, and I submit that in this hearing was it not distinctly unfair to me and unfair to this committee to leave the impression prevailing that the only reason I was at large and at liberty to appear before this committee was that there was a miscarriage of justice in the Canadian courts or because a compromise had been arrived at whereby I escaped the just deserts of my misconduct? That is the point I wish to make, that there was nothing fair about it; nothing courteous about it. One member of the committee asked whether I was declared guilty or not guilty, and this individual who had addressed these remarks to the committee did not even then show me the courtesy to state which was the fact that not only the lower court, but that when it was carried to the King's bench the decision there also was absolutely in my favor. I might state, as illustrating the unfairness of at least this individual who appears in behalf of this resolution, that this entire explanation in detail had been made by me in his presence a very short time ago. It is impossible that he should not have been familiar with every particular of it, because in his presence at a meeting at Sioux Falls I had occasion by virtue of the fact that this same matter is raised from time to time by these same individuals and representatives of the Equity Cooperative Exchange, and I had occasion to explain in detail this very same matter, as I have to you. Before proceeding to discuss any of the items which I intended to take up in this matter, I wish to reply to some of the questions presented by Mr. Shorthill. I will read the questions and answers in order that they shall be incorporated into the record at this point [reading]: QUESTIONS ASKED OFFICIALS OF THE CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE BY J. W. SHORTHILL, OF HAMPTON, NEBr. 1. Is there a limit to the number of memberships in the Chicago Board of Trade? If so, what is that limit? A. No limit. 2. Are those memberships now all sold? A. No limit. 3. Can memberships be bought and transferred at the present time? A. Yes. 4. If so, what qualifications or requirements are required of the purchaser before transfer will be made? A. Any male person of good character and credit. 5. About what is the market value of a membership at the present time? 8. Does the board have a rule or a policy that would prevent, either directly or indirectly, a cooperative company from having a representative to sell grain or do business on the floor and return the net profits of that business to his cooperative company to be divided cooperatively? A. A corporation may do business in its own name if two of its executive officers are members. In order, however, to meet this question squarely, I want to state that a cooperative company, in so far as it solicits business from those not connected with the company would be bound by the commission rule, and required to charge the regular rates of commission. I had occasion to make notes on one or two matters mentioned during the hearings, and which we desire to touch upon at this time item by item. They may have no connection one with the other; yet, since they were mentioned in the statements in support of the resolution we wish to touch upon them in reference to it. Something has been said regarding and the term has been used that there is a "switching graft," so-called, in the Minneapolis market, the intimation being that the commission merchants or members of that market place have been charging the country shipper a switching charge on cars where no charge was in fact collected. This switching charge, it was intimated, was a graft, and that this graft had been ended by reason of a ruling of the railroad and warehouse commission. This item also aptly illustrates another lack of fairness in the statements presented in support of this resolution, as I think will appear from the statement of what the switching situation is. It is simple and easily understood. The Minneapolis market place is the only market place that I know of where the railroads bringing grain |