Mr. POAGE. Do you see any way after listening to the testimonydo you see any way that it will be ever possible to pass any bill and at the same time meet the objection that has been raised?

Mr. PFEFFER. I cannot say that it would and would not. I can only

say

Mr. POAGE. You are a lawyer. Do you see any way that it could be done?

Mr. PFEFFER. As a lawyer I represent the clients-not myself, my

own views.

Mr. POAGE. I recognized you not as a lawyer but as a witnessI did not know you were representing anybody. I recognized you as a witness, but, of course, I will not insist that you testify if you do not want to.

Here is what I would like to know: Is there any way that this committee could ever write a bill that could possibly meet the objections that have been raised?

I do not mean there is anything wrong with that, if your objections are to all legislation of this kind, certainly that is perfectly proper and there is nothing wrong with anybod being opposed to any and all legislation.

All I want to know is what are the facts.

Mr. PFEFFER. I cannot answer that because it is not necessarily a single position of all of these groups. Some might and some might

not.

All of these groups which we represent here and for whom I am speaking are united only in opposition to the bills presently before the committee.

Mr. POAGE. Then I did not understand the testimony of the rabbi. I understood him to say that there would not be objection to humane slaughter, which your religion does not oppose-of course not-but the objection was because he felt that any regulation of any kind of slaughtering would somehow or other state some restriction upon the methods.

I pass no objection upon his method. I think it is perfectly proper. I would not want any legislation to deny him the right to slaughter

as he sees fit.

Does he mean to imply that nobody could have any regulations in the United States that would not be considered a reflection on his methods?

Mr. PFEFFER. I do not think that the rabbi, as I understood itand I followed the statement very carefully-expressed an opinion on any legislation other than the proposed bills before this committee.

Mr. POAGE. Now, Mr. Pfeffer, this committee has this subject before it. We are not here to consider Mrs. Griffiths' bill or Mr. Dorn's or Mr. Dixon's bills. This committee is here to act on the subject matter. This committee can and probably will write its own.

If you want to make a statement that is going to have any effect on the legislation we invite you to make it. If you do not want to make a statement that affects the legislation, that we probably will bring out, you will have passed your opportunity when you walk out of this room.

Rabbi LEWIN. May I suggest that you give us permission in answer to your very important question to submit our statement in writing in the very near future?

Mr. POAGE. Certainly we will. We will be glad to.

Mr. ALBERT. May I ask this question? I can appreciate your objection to this legislation.

Certainly neither this committe nor the authors of these bills intend to imply that any religious method of slaughtering animals is inhumane. I know that is the last thing that the authors of these bills, all of whom I know personally, intend.

I am sure you are right that under the guise of humanity, dictators have come in and interfered with the freedom of your religious worship.

Would it make any difference in your judgment if, rather than putting religious practices as an exemption in the bill these practices were included as one of the humane methods that might be authorized? Would that be satisfactory?

Mr. PFEFFER. We would like to answer that in a supplementary statement on the basis of the discussion we have had here.

Rabbi LEWIN. Yes.

Mr. PFEFFER. We prefer not to answer it without consultation with the organizations.

Mr. POAGE. We would be glad to have your statement. This committee is going to act. This committee has no intention of sitting on this for the next 6 months. We are going to take action. We will bring out something or we will not pass any bill-we will take some action.

And we would like very much to take action that will meet your objections. Frankly, we do not want to pass something here merely to injure anybody. We haven't the slightest desire to do that.

We do not want to reflect on anybody. Personally speaking, for myself, I find no objection to your practices, but I do feel that we should not let somebody's objections stand in the way where it does not involve their own practices.

All we ask is that you give us a positive statement of whether we can ever pass a bill that will meet your objections or whether we cannot. And give it to us shortly.

And if you find, as suggested by Mr. Albert, we will be delighted to have them, because we want to incorporate them in our record. Rabbi LEWIN. We appreciate very much your statement. We will act in accordance with your request.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you.

Mrs. Griffiths, you have a witness to present.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. I would like to present Dr. Myra Babcock, who is one of the greatest practitioners of anesthesia that this country has. Dr. Babcock, would you like to say something? I know she is very much in support of this bill.

STATEMENT OF DR. MYRA BABCOCK, PLEASANT RIDGE, MICH.

Dr. BABCOCK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate being asked to do this, and I appreciate the courtesy extended.

I won't take long.

In the first place, I know from personal experience that carbon dioxide is a very comfortable thing to take. I do not think anybody needs to be afraid of that.

But that it could possibly produce any damage to tissues, if it produces it to the point of death-might possibly at the point of death. I would like to say nobody actually knows what goes on at the point of death of a quiet, comfortable, fearless, painless death.

Probably change does take place, at the end of terrified, horrible death as administered in so many packinghouses. Nobody yet, I believe, has thoroughly investigated the conditions.

We do know cortisone, that lactic acid may be found in the muscles which are not particularly harmful, but there are other certain pathologic changes which may be from this strain and terror that may have some effect upon it.

And with the fact at the present moment more meat is consumed by America than any other country in the world, the death of that meat in America according to the testimony is done in a most cruel manner. And the people the men and women-particularly the men-have had a terrific rise in blood pressure and hypertension. That is one of the deadly diseases with which we deal today.

And the most menacing, the most horrible thing is the dreadful destruction of young and middle ages-some young, mostly middleaged and older people just toppling over with coronary. It is the most common thing in the world. Some have just walked across the bedroom floor and fallen over-and had had a complete electrocardigram and yet he dropped dead.

We don't know if this has any relation to the way the animals are being killed. But we do not know that it has not.

The last thing I would like to say very briefly: Why in the name of heaven do we sit here for hours when there are laws at present in the United States and in practically every State of the Union which covers the prevention of cruelty to animals?

Why it has to be an economic thing that keeps it from being enforced? Mr. Dawson, we asked him.

I didn't know how to do it-the only way I knew how to do it was to do it this way.

But the packers with plenty of money, the packers persist in using this horrible death. If you have seen the actions in the slaughterhouse you can appreciate that it is hideous. The animal fighting with every intelligence that its poor brain has, every power of its pitiful muscles, every reflex in its body, pouring out all to save him from a dreadful death.

When you think of that it seems to me it is very-a small thing for the United States Government to pass a law that will give as reasonable time as possible to get rid of the horrible, disgraceful slaughter which the United States is engaged in at the present mo

ment.

I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr. POAGE. Thank you.

Now, the bell is going to ring in just a few minutes, and I think probably there will be a rollcall very shortly, but we will proceed

as far as we can here.

Dr. Munk is not going to testify further as I understand it, nor the American Section Agudas Israel World Organization nor the Union of Orthodox Rabbis. We have already covered those.

We will next hear Mrs. Bemelmans and following her Mr. Cohn. Rabbi LEWIN. Mr. Jules Cohn was included in the presentation. Mr. POAGE. All right. Thank you.

Then next will be Mr. Gesell.

Now we will hear Mrs. Ludwig Bemelmans.

STATEMENT OF MADELEINE BEMELMANS, SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mrs. BEMELMANS. My name is Madeleine Bemelmans. I represent the Society for Animal Protective Legislation. I have come here today with a petition signed by thousands of people from all parts of the United States earnestly and respectfully urging you to do everything in your power to obtain enactment of compulsory humane slaughter legislation in this session of Congress.

I am sure that if slaughterhouses were open to the general public the signatures would run into the millions.

A few weeks ago I asked a friend, whose business brings him in contact with the packing industry, if he could arrange for me to visit slaughterhouses in the New York area. His reply was, "Why subject yourself to an experience the result of which will be that you won't be able to eat anything at all for at least a week?"

The film you will see should give you some small idea of what he

meant.

If time permitted I could read you editorials and articles published in newspapers from Maine to California expressing indignation at this national disgrace.

We have here for your inspection the Remington gun, the Cash-X pistol, the Schermer stunner, and the electric knife for stunning poultry, all of which demonstrate that more humane methods are possible and practical.

Recently we received the good news that the price of equipment utilizing carbon dioxide has been substantially reduced. And certainly large-scale production, resulting from a wider demand for it. will lower its cost still more.

One of the main arguments advanced by those who oppose compulsory legislation is that the instruments for humane slaughter have not been sufficiently tested. This is contrary to fact, and furthermore, if perfection is ever to be arrived at, it will be achieved-not by study groups, however valuable they may be but in the practical application of the means at hand.

So long as existing conditions prevail, who of us, with a clear conscience, can eat meat produced at the cost of so much needless suffering on the part of the animal that dies for our benefit?

Cruelty is expensive because it is wasteful. It is demoralizing to those who practice it and to those who condone it. It should be outlawed.

If time permitted I could read editorials from newspapers from Maine to California, showing indignation at this national disgrace. We will have a film.

Mr. POAGE. May I ask you about that knife before you leave? How it works, because we had testimony a while ago, even this morning, that it took 15 seconds for an electric shock to result in insensibility as I understood it.

Mrs. BEMELMANS. This is in addition to the shock. There is actually a blade there. This is hitched up to a machine which resembles a radio, and so the shock plus the blade will stun.

Mr. POAGE. It seems to me that the blade would have already killed the animal before the shock became effective.

Mrs. BEMELMANS. I think if the throat is cut, if the head isn't severed, the animal will still be conscious during the period.

Mr. POAGE. If the head were not severed, but in the case of poultry, practically, it is severed, isn't it?

Mrs. BEMELMANS. No, not in all cases. And in the bills one of the provisions is, I believe, that killing of poultry by severing the head is an acceptable method.

Mr. POAGE. Yes.

Mrs. BEMELMANS. But in cases where the people prefer to bleed the animal then this knife is acceptable.

Mr. POAGE. It is possible that would be effective on larger animals? Mrs. BEMELMANS. Yes.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you.

Mrs. BEMELMANS. Thank you.

Mr. POAGE. The next witness is Mrs. Robert Gesell, representing the Animal Welfare Institute, 22 East Seventeenth Street, New York 3. N. Y.

STATEMENT OF MRS. ROBERT GESELL, ANIMAL WELFARE

INSTITUTE, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mrs. GESELL. I am taking the place of my daughter, Christine Stevens, who is the head of the Animal Welfare Institute. She has previous engagements so could not come.

I would like to read just a word of something that has just come because it appears that some people say that carbon dioxide is not as humane a method of producing insensibility in animals about to be killed.

My husband was a chairman of the Department of Physiology in the University of Michigan for 31 years and he knew that carbon dioxide is a humane method on people, at least. And here is some new work that has been done in England just recently on human beings, and I do not see how better you can prove that carbon dioxide is a humane method.

There is also work that is quoted in my daughter's testimony of, I think, Dr. Blomquist in Denmark where they have tried out this carbon dioxide method by finding that animals are insensible to touch or to be stepped on with wooden shoes after they have been in carbon dioxide atmosphere for about 20 seconds.

And for 15 seconds of that time they are absolutely unconcerned. There are some reflexes. That is also true of human beings in England.

I would like to add on my own account that there are a great many less ordinary housewives that are considering needless cruelty a sin,