22 GRAZING FEES GUARANTY PRICE ON WHEAT. 



he would purchase, and so enforced that contract that they let him 

 make about $2 a barrel on the wheat he had on hand and the wheat 

 he purchased? And they went to 'him with their auditors and found 

 the miller had profiteered, and let him settle with the Food Adminis- 

 tration for anywhere from I4 to 5 per cent of the amount he had 

 charged over that 25 cents a barrel. 



Mr. Clement. I was going to come to that, but you have told it so 

 much better than I could there is nothing left for me to%ay along 

 that line. That was absolutely true. 



But there was one exception with reference to the millers. There 

 were some millers who had more than a 60 day's supply of wheat 

 who were compelled to ship out some of their wheat, and they took 

 the same loss that we did on their wheat, and they are also claiming 

 the loss. 



Mr. McLaughlin of Michigan. They claim the same loss ? 



Mr. Clement. Yes, sir ; they are asking for the same thing. They 

 paid the high price too, and they forced them to ship it out. 



Mr. EuBET. They had more than they could get rid of ? 



Mr. Clement. More than they could grind in the 60 days. The 

 contracts were all the same. There was uniformity in the contract, 

 but there was no uniformity in its enforcement and in the interpre- 

 tation of the rules under that contract, so that it dealt with some as 

 fish and with others as fowl. 



Mr. TiNCHEE. The only cases that I know of where anybody in 

 Kansas got into trouble over that contract were two specific cases 

 where millers were cited to show cause why their licenses should not 

 be revoked, for two reasons; first, for paying too much for their 

 wheat, and, second, selling flour too cheap. I attended those hear- 

 ings. [Laughter.] 



Mr. Wilson. Don't you think the licenses should have been taken 

 away from such reckless men? 



Mr. TiNCi-iER. They did come pretty near doing it. 



Mr. Clement. In conclusion we will state that our whole case 

 rests upon the proposition that it was unjust to place a loss of that 

 kind under those conditions on the grain dealers. The second pro- 

 position is that we are entitled to recover either from the Treasury 

 of the United States or from the treasury of the Grain Corporation 

 the losses we sustained. I understand they have a $1,000,000,000 

 revolving fund and that they have made over $50,000,000 in the 

 operation of the Grain Corporation, and we know part of that money 

 is ours. 



Mr. TiNCHEE. That $50,000,000 is in better shape now, since Con- 

 gress has let them furnish that $50,000,000 worth of flour to the 

 Armenians. 



Mr. Wilson. Would you be willing to wait for your money until 

 we get that money back from themf [Laughter.] 



Mr. Clement. No ; I do not believe we would. "I had hoped they 

 would not use all that profit in putting out that flour on the terms 

 at which they put it out over there. 



Mr. Wilson. I understand the flour was not good flour, that it 

 was a very low grade of flour that they could not sell in this country 



Mr. Clement. I do not know about that. ' 



