656 IOWA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



and therefore we have no possible objection to such supervision 

 from a Bureau of Markets. 



Mr. Ames: Why is it, if the exchanges were so much in favor 

 of the Kenyon-Kendrick bills not passed, why did they object to 

 them so seriously if they didn't consider them detrimental legis- 

 lation? 



Mr. Stryker : Speaking once more for Omaha, and for Stryk- 

 er, I would like to have the gentleman who asked the question 

 look at the evidence given by our representatives when the Ken- 

 yon-Kendrick bills were discussed. You will find we said at that 

 time what I have just reiterated this morning — we objected to 

 certain features of the Kenyon-Kendrick bill then, we object to 

 them today, or would if those features were in the bills, but since 

 our objections were formulated many of the obnoxious features 

 have been eliminated. We wanted your business handled in an 

 expeditious and economical manner, and the major objections we 

 made to the provisions of the Kenyon-Kendrick bills have borne 

 fruit in an amended bill which has not in it most of the features 

 to which we objected. We said we didn't care who owned the 

 stock yards. Mr. Bray has; just O. K.'d that statement. We 

 said that the packers' cars shouldn't be taken away from them, 

 and we objected to other features of the Kenyon-Kendrick bill, 

 and most of them have been eliminated in the bill which has just 

 been placed before congress. 



Mr. Bray : In view of the questions that have been asked 

 and the discussion that has taken place up to the present time, 

 and I will finish in just a minute, I would like to say that in all 

 of the activities of the Bureau of Markets in connection with 

 this legislation we were following a prescribed course which 

 congress had made it obligatory upon the Department of Agri- 

 culture, through the president's proclamation, to perform. We 

 had no option as to whether we should do it one way or another, 

 except where there was a choice between two courses, and in 

 that case we could only take one course. We did this, but I want 

 it understood, and I believe that Mr. Stafford will bear me out 

 in this, that at no time, unless it may have been through misun- 

 derstanding, did we ever undertake to do anything or say any- 

 thing in dealing with these cases which would indicate that we 

 wanted to reflect upon the live stock exchanges or the functions 

 of the live stock exchanges, or any lack of activity on the part of 

 the live stock exchanges. 



