God, you know, has always been an integral part of our Nation. Our forefathers, when they signed the Declaration of Independence, called upon nature, God, and the Supreme Judge of the world for authority to found a new nation.

This Nation was to be built on the laws of God. There were to be many freedoms. There was to be freedom of enterprise and freedom of religion or there was to be freedom not to partake in enterprise and not to practice any religion.

But none of these freedoms were to be construed as privilege or license to commit immoral acts.

This would be a country of law and order. The weak would be protected and the defenseless would be defended. Actually there are two distinct questions before us now, and perhaps we have been making the mistake of confusing the two.

The first one is purely moral. In an ethical society does anyone have the right to inflict suffering on living flesh or to make a profit by doing so?

The moral answer can only be "No", which means that we must have a public law to prevent it.

To be sure, most of the laws which you enact nowadays are primarily regulations to improve the economy. Seldom do you now face an issue which involves a moral conflict of the law of God, so naturally you may get into thinking of yourselves more as economists than as keepers of the public morale.

But keepers of the public morals you must be none the less when the occasion arises, and the occasion has now arisen.

The second question before us is economic. Assuming that we have done the moral thing, assuming that we have passed compulsory legislation, how then can we best help the packers in the practical problem of changing over to our prescribed methods?

As an adjunct to the compulsory law, I personally would have no objection to House Resolution 5820. Anything that will help an animal would be O. K. with me. In fact, you can double my taxes if you want to, if you can assure that the Department of Agriculture will give proportionate results.

But unfortunately all the taxpayers do not reflect my sentiments. In fact, rumor has it that this Congress is at present a little bit reluctant to give big new appropriations to any department, and this bill is an omnibus bill.

This bill would take in practically every humane problem that we have on the books regarding cattle and pigs, and to do the bill justice, it would take a tremendous appropriation.

Last week I spent 2 hours almost in the Department of Agriculture with Dr. Miller discussing exactly how this thing would work out in practice. I did not want to be for it or against it until I knew exactly how it would work out. They told me that if the appropriation were not large enough to cover this whole wide field, then this consulting committee provided for would decide which items would be given attention.

The consulting committee might, for instance, decide to work just on transportation and ignore slaughtering altogether, so we have absolutely no guaranty that even if you pass 5820 that anything will be done about the slaughtering problem.

Is this compulsory bill by itself, without further study by the Department, fair to the packers, because we humanitarians want to be fair to the packers.

You have had plenty of testimony today, which I won't repeat, that we have good methods already in existence which will increase. profits, but maybe we are wrong.

After all, there are only a few houses who have tried them. Maybe the experience of Hormel and the others will prove to be only exceptions. Maybe when more of the industry take up these methods, they will find that in their particular situations these new methods will actually increase their costs.

It could happen. Well, if it does happen, or if there is any possibility of its happening, then the only way we will ever get humane methods in the industry is for the entire industry to adopt the new methods simultaneously.

I could not blame any packer for not risking an increase in operational costs unless all of his competitors were facing the same risks. But if they all faced the same risks, then no one will profit at the expense of the others.

If such a Federal law is passed, I predict that the States will follow it in short order, for public opinion against wanton cruelty is overwhelming. There is hardly a hamlet in the length and breadth of the land that does not punish cruelties either by direct edict or by judicial decision, but so far commercial institutions have remained immune from these laws, on the argument that they could not survive against competitors in other States where restrictions were not imposed.

So you see, gentlemen, we need a Federal law and we need it desperately in order that local laws can be upheld and in order that competition will be fair for everyone in the entire industry.

Of course the switchover will mean plowing back a little of the profits to put in this new equipment. So what? Every other big industry seems to be constantly improving its method, its design, its equipment and putting up reserves or setting aside reserves for that purpose.

Only the meatpackers cling to prehistoric methods.
Aren't they about due for a little modernization?

And of course there will be technical problems.

Again I say, so what? Certainly engineers who broke the sound barrier can work the bugs out of a captive-bolt pistol. It may be indeed that these instruments you have seen today that seem so good at present will not stand up in operation, but if they do not, if there is a compulsory law saying that all meatpackers must use these methods, I will guarantee you or I will make a wager that some of the best engineers in this country will rush in to fill the gap with inventions that they may sell to industry which will perhaps be better than anything we have seen today because that is the American

way.

May I read you a little quotation from a letter which the Department of Agriculture sent out last year?

Last year of course it was not for this bill because no one had offered them a big appropriation.

Now they have more appropriations so the story is different, or rather now that we are proposing a bigger appropriation the story is different.

But last year they said:

Progress can best be accomplished by private initiative and individual ingenuity in the traditional American manner.

Personally I think last year they were pretty right. So with everyone working under the same competitive system, competition is bound to find an equilibrium wherein each packer will get approximately the same profits which he is getting now.

It is only in the desultory one by one changeovers that real risks are taken or that some plants may be at a tremendous advantage while others are at a disadvantage. So with the risk cut to a minimum, why should industry resist compulsory simultaneous change?

The answer is obvious. Why should they bother to go through all of this retooling? Why should they bother to eliminate suffering if their profits are going to be just the same after they have done it all? Why? Because I hope we are still a moral nation, because if we want to go on calling ourselves this Nation under God, we cannot allow any industrial plant, big or little, to profit from the sufferings of God's creatures.

Thank you.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you so much.

Mrs. HOLWAY. May I also file my statement and a little brochure of a letter sent from a United States Government inspector in a slaughterhouse to the National Humane Society, which I think will tell you what the Department of Agriculture could do even now without an appropriation if it had the will and the authority, neither of which I am afraid it has at the present time.

Mr. POAGE. Without objection.

(The documents referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENTS BY MRS. FRANCES A. HOLWAY, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Gentlemen, I am a housewife, a mother, and a grandmother, and I believe I am representing thousands of other housewives, mothers, and grandmothers who want their children brought up in a moral world based on the laws of God. God has always been an integral part in our national tradition. When our forefathers wrote the Declaration of Independence they spoke of nature's God and called upon the Supreme Judge of the world for authority to found a new nation. There were to be many freedoms; freedom of enterprise, freedom of religion, or freedom to engage in no enterprise or to practice no religion, but none of these freedoms were to be construed as license to commit immoral acts. This would be a country of law and order. The weak would be protected, the defenseless defended.

To be sure, most of the laws you enact nowadays are primarily regulations to improve the economy. Seldom do you now face an issue which involves a moral conflict with the law of God. So, naturally, you may get to thinking of yourselves more in the light of economists than keepers of the public morals. But keepers of the public morals you must be nevertheless when the occasion arises, and the occasion has now arisen.

Actually we have two distinct questions before us now and perhaps we have been making the mistake of confusing the two. The one is purely moral: In an ethical society does anyone have the right to inflict suffering on living flesh or make a profit thereby? The moral answer can only be "No," which means we must have a public law to prevent it.

The second question before us is economic: Assuming we have done the moral thing, assuming we have passed a compulsory bill, then how can we best help the packers in the practical problem of changing over to the prescribed methods? As an adjunct to the compulsory bill, H. R. 5820 would no doubt be helpful, and I would never be against anything which would help an animal. Personally, I would not mind if you doubled my taxes if you could guarantee results after the

Department of Agriculture makes its studies. But all taxpayers do not share my sentiments and rumor has it that Congress is not now in a mood to make large appropriations. This is an omnibus bill, taking in every phase of the humane handling of meat animals, and to cover this field adequately would take an enormously large appropriation. What if Congress does not make an adequate appropriation?

I spent half of an afternoon at the Department of Agriculture discussing this problem with Dr. Clarkson and Dr. Miller for I could not tell whether I should favor the bill or not until I saw how they planned to implement it. They explained to me that if the appropriation should not be adequate to cover the whole range of subjects the advisory committee would decide which one or two projects would get attention. Therefore, it is entirely possible that all the time and money available may be spent on transportation or handling, and no attention at all given to the problem of slaughter.

Let us ask if a compulsory bill would be fair to the packers, for we humanitarians do want to be fair to them. We think-and quite honestly-that humane methods will decrease their costs. But maybe we are wrong. Maybe the experience of Hormel will prove to be an exception. Maybe when other plants adopt th evarious humane methods they will find that their costs rise or that there are technical problems we have not anticipated. If this is true, or if there is any possibility it might be true, then we cannot blame any producer for hesitating to take risks and make himself a guinea pig for the industry. Our only hope of achieving progress in that case would be a simultaneous changeover by the entire industry so that all would be taking the same risks and working out the problems together.

Of course the switchover will mean plowing back a little of the profit. So what? Every other big industry seems to be constantly improving its designs, methods, and equipment, and setting up reserves for that purpose. Only the meatpackers are clinging to prehistoric methods. Aren't they about due for a modernization?

And, of course, there will be technical problems. But again I say, so what? Certainly engineers who broke the sound barrier can work the bugs out of a captive-bolt pistol. In fact, once you pass the compulsory bill, once you establish a guaranteed market for humane equipment, I would be willing to wager that inventors will rush in to fill that market with equipment which may be superior to anything we have seen to date. And you won't have to give the Department of Agriculture a big slice of the taxpayer's money to do the developing. In fact, last year, before this idea of giving the Department an appropriation had been suggested, the Department said in a letter, "Progress * * * can best be accomplished by private initiative and individual ingenuity in the traditional American manner." I am still inclined to agree with the Department's attitude at that time.

I, under a compulsory bill, the entire industry changes simultaneously to humane methods, competition is bound to find an equilibrium wherein each packer will get approximately the same profits he is getting now. It is only in the desultory one-by-one changeovers in an experimental stage that real risks are taken, or that some plants may be at a tremendous advantage while others are at a disadvantage.

If we can pass a Federal law, then we my expect that local laws will be more effective. Public opinion against cruelty is overwhelming. There is hardly a hamlet in the length and breadth of the land which does not punish cruelty by edict or judicial decision. But so far commercial institutions have remained immune from these laws on the ground that they could not survive competition against competitors who were not so restricted. So you see, we need a Federal law, and we need it desperately, in order that local laws will be effective and in order that the entire industry will be on fair competitive ground.

With competition and risks minimized, with every chance that the new methods will decrease costs instead of increasing them, with possible large savings in meat and better working conditions for employees, why should the industry object to a compulsory bill?

The answer is obvious. Simple inertia. Things may be better under a new system, but as long as profits are satisfactory now, why go through the bother of changing?

Why? For just one reason: Because if we are to go on calling ourselves "this Nation under God" we cannot allow any industrial plant, big or little, to profit from the sufferings of God's creatures.

I would like to insert into the record for your perusal a letter from a United States Government inspector in a slaughterhouse to the National Humane Society. It will give a very small glimpse of the very large overall problem, and it will also show that the Department of Agriculture could even now-without a further appropriation-stamp out some of the evil if it had the will and the authority.

A LETTER FROM A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT INSPECTOR IN A SLAUGHTERHOUSE TO THE NATIONAL HUMANE SOCIETY (AND TO YOU)

This folder presents, without editing of any kind, a letter sent to the National Humane Society by an inspector of the Bureau of Meat Inspection, United States Department of Agriculture. Other Federal inspectors have told the NHS that the cruelties reported are not unusual. Primary purpose of this reprint is to inform local humane societies and law-enforcement officers about cruelties of this type and to help humane officers in their work.

The NATIONAL HUMANE SOCIETY,

733 15th Street NW., Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIRS: One of the most common practices of inhumane treatment to livestock in slaughterhouses is the use of the electric prod pole. (The electric prod pole is a wooden pole about 6 or 8 feet long and has the wires from an electric light socket attached to it and running along the side to the bottom end containing terminals that give the animal the full charge of electricity when touched to them.)

The cattle or calves are first washed with a cold water spray or water hose and then are driven into metal knocking boxes with this pole. Often when the prod is used, the cattle are shocked so badly they are not able to move and fall down, and more cattle are forced over them. On numerous occasions the cattle driver pushes the prod pole up the rectum of these unfortunate animals, and all they can do is bellow.

Another very bad feature or practice is that these knocking boxes were intended originally for 1 or 2 cattle at a time, but most of the time these drivers force 3 or 4 animals into this small compartment. Naturally, the first 1 or 2 in are forced to the floor and the others driven over them. When the prod pole is touched to one, naturally they are all shocked. On one occasion, the third beef jumped up and caught one front foot in the cable to the trap door. The knocker (the knocker is the man who uses the poleax) attempted to amputate the foot with a steel bar that was handy, but was stopped by an inspector at that establishment.

The excessive use of the prod pole is prevalent in all slaughterhouses that I have ever been in. Of course, some are much worse than others. Some drivers seem to get much satisfaction from hearing animals bellowing.

I believe that if an electric prod pole could be, and I believe it can be, regulated to giving a much lesser shock, and if used properly, it would save a lot of bruises on cattle, which is quite a loss to the meatpacker.

On another occasion, witnessed by one of my fellow workers, on driving some calves up the chute from the yard pens, a plant employee used a cane and deliberately put an eye out of a calf which turned back, by jabbing the cane into the eye. Another time this same driver had a large bull, which was quite lame in one hind leg. He put it in one of the holding pens and proceeded to use the electric prod pole on him unmercifully until the poor animal was wild with fright and pain and I protested and made him stop.

I have seen cattle which were knocked or stunned with the hammer and rolled out on the floor and hung up for bleeding after sticking, and the header started to skin out the head while the animal was still alive and was trying to bellow. I have stopped this many times.

When calves are slaughtered, they are driven into a small pen and stunned with a hammer. The calves are not completely stunned sometimes. They are shackled and pulled up to an overhead rail and bled. Sometimes the hind feet are skinned out and cut off while the animal is still alive, and they come out on the floor by a moving chain still kicking. Thank goodness this does not happen too often.

In the slaughter of sheep, the animals are not stunned but are shackled and pulled up to an overhead rail and are bled by sticking a knife through the