during the continued observance of the law. This plan has worked in a satisfactory manner, and I am satisfied that a very large proportion of the railroad systems of the country has endeavored in good faith to comply with the terms of the statute.

Early in the past fall seasons, when the ranges were being harvested, it developed that the yard and chute facilities of the railroad companies were entirely inadequate to unload and properly care for the very large number of cattle then being transported to market. Now, the railroads had assured the Department that the law would be observed in the future. They knew that the Department was closely watching and reporting each violation of the law as it occurred, and they were naturally making every effort at least to appear to comply with the laws, and were unloading the cattle in miserably equipped pens for food, rest, and water, and in many cases were even unloading them upon the open prairie, to the great detriment and damage of the cattle and to the prejudice of the owners and shippers. Realizing these facts, I, at that time, stated to representative stockmen and railroad officials that the Department would not, for the present, report cases to the Department of Justice for prosecution in which the time limit fixed by the statute was exceeded by a small margin, when it was apparent that the railroads were doing their utmost to comply with the law, and that if the cattle were unloaded they would suffer greater hardship than if they were carried on to their destination without being unloaded.

At that time I conversed with a number of the largest, best informed, and most influential stockmen of the United States and their statements to me do not bear out the statements attributed to Colorado stockmen by Mr. Whitehead. The stockmen, shippers, and commission men to whom I talked were unanimously of the opinion that it would be to the advantage of the cattle and of the owners thereof that the time limit during which cattle might be confined in transit without food, rest, and water be extended from twenty-eight hours to thirty-six hours.

Based upon a careful observation of the workings of the law, the treatment of the cattle and the advantage of the shippers and owners of live stock, it is my belief that if certain other amendments to the law, hereinafter described, shall be adopted, the time during which cattle may be confined in cars without food, rest, and water may be extended from twenty-eight hours to thirty-six hours without disadvantage to the cattle.

*

*

It should be noted that section 4388, Revised Statutes, provides that "Where animals are carried in cars in which they can and do have proper food, water, space, and opportunity to rest the provisions in regard to their being unloaded shall not apply." It is probable that in this provision of the law lies the solution of the question. One western road, which possibly handles more cattle than any other railroad in the world, has provided cars properly equipped, sufficient in number, to care for all the business which it handles. The question of rest is an unsettled one, from the fact that when cattle are loosely loaded to permit them to lie down, and are transported in long trains, they are liable to be jammed and to become injured to a greater extent than when they are more closely packed.

The great western markets for live stock are Chicago, East St. Louis, and the Missouri River towns. The ranges and feed lots are

so located that if the railroads give the shippers anything like reasonable service, with a thirty-six-hour limit, by far the larger proportion of the cattle can be transported to market within thirtysix hours, and this will obviate the necessity for unloading the greater part of the cattle. With a thirty-six-hour limit, it will not be necessary to unload cattle from any locality more than twice. When market can be reached in thirty-six hours, I am satisfied it is more humane and better for the cattle to carry them through to destination without unloading than to unload them for food, rest, and water at the end of twenty-eight hours.

The points made by Mr. Whitehead in regard to adequate facilities for taking care of cattle which are unloaded for food, rest, and water, and the brutal and inhumane manner of unloading and reloading are well taken, and furnish good reason why the law should be amended in certain particulars. Under the present law there is no way in which the railroads can be compelled to provide adequate and properly equipped pens and yards, or to load and unload the animals in a humane way.

I am of opinion that the following amendments may very profitably be made to the existing law:

1. For reasons hereinbefore stated, provide that the time during which animals may be confined in cars without food, rest, and water be extended from twenty-eight hours to thirty-six hours.

2. Provide that the cattle must.be loaded and unloaded in a humane manner into properly equipped pens. This is a serious omission in the present law.

3. Provide that the owner or shipper of the animals may furnish the necessary food if he so desires. Many companies have charged most exorbitant fees for supplying food, and, as the law gives a lien on the stock for food furnished, shippers and owners of stock have been, in many cases, outrageously overcharged.

4. Provide that every common carrier, other than by water, engaged in the interstate transportation of live stock, shall maintain on all stock trains an average minimum rate of speed of not less than 18 miles per hour from the time when such live stock is loaded upon or into the cars and made part of the train until the train reaches the destination or junction point for delivery to another common carrier, with a deduction for the time necessarily lost in feeding, resting, and watering, and in the unloading and reloading for those purposes, and for such other time as the stock may be delayed by storm or other accidental causes which can not be anticipated or avoided by the exercise of due diligence and foresight. It is true, as stated by Mr. Whitehead, that in many cases the railroads have not given the shippers the service to which they are justly entitled. It has frequently happened that stock trains have been delayed for dead freight and for other trivial causes, and, by reason of the large amount of tonnage which one engine is compelled to handle, a slow rate of speed has been maintained and stock has been detained upon the road for an unreasonable time. To extend the time during which cattle may be confined in cars without food, rest, and water without requiring a reasonable speed minimum would not benefit the shipper. The laws of one, and perhaps more of the States, require a reasonable speed minimum to be maintained on all trains transporting live stock within the borders of the State.

5. The statute should be broadened to cover practically every common carrier of live stock, including a receiver of any company. The Supreme Court has held, in the case of the United States v. Harris (177 U. S., 305), that existing law does not include the receiver of a railroad company. At the present time a certain railroad, now in the hands of a Federal receiver, is confining animals fifty and even sixty hours without food, rest, and water.

6. The statute should be amended to cover the transportation of animals from a State to a Territory or from a Territory to a State. The United States district court for the district of Kansas has held recently, in the case of The United States v. The St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad Company (an unreported case), that the law does not cover a shipment from a Territory to a State, the wording of the statute being 66* * * which transports live stock from

one State to another."

In conclusion, I desire to say that I am most emphatically in favor of reasonable regulations and restrictions upon the interstate movement of live stock, not only because live stock should be treated in a humane manner, but because of the further fact that when cattle are detained in transit for long periods of time without food, rest, and water they become fevered and should not be slaughtered in that condition.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

JAMES WILSON, Secretary.

[Issued by American Stock Growers' Association, Cattle Raisers' Association of Texas, National Live Stock Association, and others. Filed by Mr. Cowan, and asked to be printed.]

Reasons for amending section 4386, Revised. Statutes of the United States, which now requires that live stock shipped by rail shall be unloaded at the end of twenty-eight hours.

The proposition herein discussed is to extend the time to thirty-six hours, exclusive of the time for loading and unloading.

FIRST. The origin of the twenty-eight-hour law.

When the section of the statute in question was adopted as a law of the United States, on March 3, 1873, there were comparatively little shipments by rail of live stock for long distances and practically no shipments of range stock. The vast areas of public lands and railroad grants west of the Missouri River were not occupied by cattle ranches, sheep ranches, and stock farms and were not penetrated by railroads equipped for carrying live stock. The conditions surrounding the matter of transporting live stock were entirely different to what they are at this time. Furthermore, the twenty-eight-hour limitation was purely an arbitrary one, probably arrived at after a comparatively slight inquiry; and it has been said, and likely is proven, that the occasion for the enactment of the statute in question was due to the activity and energy of the private car lines patenting and preparing to put into use specially equipped stock cars for the purpose of feeding and watering the live stock en route, which they wished to compel the public to use. This is evidenced to some extent by the provision of section 4388, as follows:

"But when animals are carried in cars, boats, or other vehicles in which they can and do have proper feed, water, space, and opportunity to rest this provision in regard to being unloaded shall not apply."

UNIVERSAL DEMAND OF STOCKMEN FOR EXTENSION TO AT LEAST THIRTY-SIX HOURS.

The American Stock Growers' Association and Cattle Raisers' Association of Texas, representing those mainly engaged in the cattle business throughout the

great Southwest, the National Live Stock Association, representing numerous organizations of persons in the sheep business, cattle business, and other lines of live-stock business, the various State live-stock organizations, the National Wool Growers' Association, and the National Live Stock Exchange, representing live-stock commission merchants of the United States, all demand the extension of the time to at least thirty-six hours. Most of these bodies have passed resolutions expressive of this demand.

During the Fifty-seventh Congress a bill fixing the limit at forty hours was passed by the House, it went to the Senate, and was referred to the Committee on Interstate Commerce. A subcommittee was appointed to which it was referred, but the bill was never reported and died a natural death.

The opposition to extending the time by the humane society is due to misapprehension, for—

It is positively less humane to comply with the twenty-eight-hour limit than it would be to extend the time to thirty-six hours, as herein requested.

It compels the doing of positive injury in many instances; does practically no good in any.

SECOND. Experience demonstrates the injurious results from enforcing the twenty-eight-hour limit-The Secretary of Agriculture indorses the proposition to extend the time.

During the years of 1904 the enforcement of this law. in hundreds of instances the great hardship and injury to the animals caused by the enforcement of this law by requiring them to be arbitrarily unloaded at the end of twenty-eight hours, against the judgment of shippers who were present and could see what was best to do.

and 1905 the Secretary of Agriculture undertook During that time actual experience demonstrated

It often resulted that live stock would have to be unloaded when suitable or sufficient pens were reached earlier than the twenty-eight hours, because no sufficient pens for the quantity of stock en route could be reached within that time, the railroads choosing the safe side to avoid the penalty.

It frequently resulted in unloading the live stock 50 or 100 miles out from the market when the market could have been reached by an hour or a few hours more than the twenty-eight hours. It resulted in upsetting all calculations with respect to the time of reaching the market. It often resulted in concentrating so many live stock at particular pens en route that the yards were insufficient for the extraordinary number of live stock which the law arbitrarily required to be unloaded at such point. It compelled the cattle to be unloaded in storms, in snow, sleet, and rain, at all hours of the night. It upset the handling and running of trains, requiring them to be split up and some of the cars having been loaded earlier would have to stop while others would go on, and all of this entailed serious and material loss upon the shipper to no one's benefit. This can be thoroughly demonstrated by hundreds of instances.

The Secretary of Agriculture, after a thorough investigation of the matter, reached the conclusion that the live-stock shipper was entitled to relief from this twenty-eight-hour limit, and he therefore concurs in the effort to secure an amendment of the law to that end.

With all these indorsements and representations upon the subject, it would seem a little remarkable that there should be any question with respect to this amendment of the law.

As the country has developed by the construction of railroads and the rail transportation of live stock, the establishment of markets, feeding places, points of reshipment through the growth of this vast commerce, it has been plainly seen that this law should not apply to existing conditions, and that has been fully evidenced by the fact that for twenty years it has practically been a dead letter, unenforced until recently, as above stated. This argues strongly that there was no general demand for the enforcement of such a law and no apparent necessity for its enforcement; in other words, the business and the proper handling of the business in its evolution has entirely outgrown this antiquated, if ever beneficial, law.

And now that practically everybody who is affected by it demands an amendment, as herein requested, Congress would certainly fall far short of its duty if it fails to do so.

THIRD. The demand is only reasonable and fair.

It may be said that the demand for the extension of this time is largely from the shippers from the West, but this is not wholly true, for the experience in shipping from Chicago, Kansas City, and St. Louis to points in the East like Pittsburg, Buffalo, and Boston, and to various localities for feeding and fattening purposes in the States of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York and others when the twenty-eight-hour law was rigorously enforced, developed as material hardships in that class of shipment as in shipments from the West to the Missouri River markets or to Chicago. Shippers and others interested in that sort of shipments are earnestly demanding the change in the time limit to thirty-six hours.

If, however, the principal complaints and demands have come from the West it is because of the fact that it is a stock country, and from that territory the long rail shipments are the rule or the necessity, both for the benefit of the shipper and the benefit of the consumer, and it is to be expected that those who are materially affected by the rigor of the arbitrary and unreasonable statute are the ones who complain about it and demand its amendment or repeal; those who are not affected naturally are not complaining. It argues nothing, therefore, against such amendment that the demand is greater from the West and none from States not much affected. The duty to protect the interests which need protection is none the less because there are localities and conditions where it is not much needed. For the purpose of illustration we shall refer, therefore, to shipments from the West and Southwest, as demonstrating the workings of the present law if enforced.

ACTUAL HAPPENINGS FROM ENFORCING TWENTY-EIGHT-HOUR LIMIT.

Shipments from Utah, western Colorado, and Wyoming are unloaded generally for the purpose of feeding or for other purposes at Denver, Pueblo, or Cheyenne; ample provisions have been made for that purpose at those places. It is a natural commercial condition. Denver is something of a stock market, and a great many live stock are bought and sold there and are reshipped. The distance from Denver to Kansas City or Omaha or St. Joseph ranges from a little over 500 to a little over 600 miles. Under ideal conditions a full train load of live stock may be carried to these points within twenty-eight hours, but that requires an extraordinarily good run, and it is a fair statement that in 75 per cent of the shipments the run to Kansas City or St. Joseph will not be made within twenty-eight hours, and probably in 50 per cent of the shipments the run to Omaha will not be made witin twenty-eight hours. The result is that in cases where the run can not be made or is not made within the twenty-eighthour limit, if that law were enforced, it would require an unloading oftentimes at some point within 50 or 100 miles of the destination.

Take a shipment of 10 carloads of cattle that originated in Utah or western Colorado, destined to Kansas City and unloaded, watered, fed, offered for sale, and possibly sold at Denver and reshipped, or, if not sold, the shipment continued after the cattle have been rested and fed. Manifestly 10 cars do not make a train load, and no one would expect a railroad to run a train with no other freight in it for that purpose. Consequently the train is filled up with other freight. The exigencies of the business, the running of the trains both ways, doing business over a single-track railway, which is amply sufficient for all their business in that locality, means that this train will not reach Kansas City within twenty-eight hours, and it will probably be unloaded at some point like Manhattan, 100 miles from Kansas City. The convenience of the shipper from Denver is to load late in the afternoon or about night, with the expectation of making the second morning's market at Kansas City. For example, to load, say, at 6 p. m. Saturday evening at Denver, with the expectation of arriving at Kansas City at 4 or 5 a. m. Monday morning, unload, water, and rest the cattle, and then offer them for sale. The market is in the morning, and most buyers are supplied before noon. Now, instead of reaching Kansas City at 4 or 5 a. m., if these cattle are required to be stopped off, unloaded, and fed, say, at 12 o'clock at night at Manhattan, they will not reach Kansas City till late in the afternoon and have to be held over until Tuesday morning. Since these cattle are going to the market for the purpose of being killed, manifestly it is better to get them there at as early a time as possible for that purpose. They are taken off the range; they are wild cattle; they are nervous; they are in