The
Online Reefer Madness Teaching Museum
Marijuana Tax Act of 1937
TAXATION
OF MARIHUANA
Hearings
Before the
Committee on Ways
and Means
House
of Representatives
Seventy-fifth
Congress
First
Session on
H.R.
6385
April
27-30, and May 4, 1937
SECTION
1 SECTION
2 SECTION
3 SECTION
4 SECTION
5
Additional
Statement of Hon. Ralph F. Lozier, Carrollton, Mo, General Counsel of the
National Institute of Oilseed Products
Statement
of Raymond G. Scarlett, Representing William G. Scarlett & Co.,
Baltimore, MD.
Statement
of Joseph B. Hertzfield, Manager, Feed Department, TGhe Philadelphia Seed
Co., Philadelphia, PA
ADDITIONAL
STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH F. LOZIER,
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTE
OF OILSEED PRODUCTS
Mr.
Lozier: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. I will State, in
corroboration of the statement made by Mr. Hester, that we had a conference last
evening, and at that time we agreed upon some of these changes. At that time the
visitorial powers of the Department with reference to oil had not been removed
from the bill, and it was our contention that if any supervision or visitorial
powers were given the Department over oil and cake after the crushing process,
it would taint and place under suspicion all oil and cake products, subject them
to possible seizure, and the manufacturers or dealers to prosecution, and no
linoleum, soap, or paint manufacturer would buy the oil and no farmer would buy
the cake for fear it might be found that a few twigs, leaves, or portions of the
flowering tops were not removed from the seeds before crushing.
Mr.
Hester, representing the Department, exercising the good judgement that he
always shows, has agreed to amend the definition of marihuana so as to eliminate
the oil, oil cake, and oil meal entirely. That will prevent any seizures of
tanks cars and the imposition of a tax on paint, soap, and linoleum
manufacturers, should anyone raise any question as to the seed containing parts
of the tops, twigs, or leaves of the plant. The definition drawn by Mr. Hester
is satisfactory to us, and the other amendments are also satisfactory to the
crushers or the mills engaged in the production of hempseed oil.
As
I said in my statement yesterday, my clients recognize the wisdom of very severe
and stringent regulatory control over marihuana, insofar as it may be used for
deleterious purposes. The only point we want to bring before the committee is
that the legislation be made reasonable, and that it may not travel into
unexplored regions and embody provisions inimical to a great industry and which
would no promote the real object of the bill.
Speaking
for 15 or 20 companies engaged in crushing hempseed oil, represented by the
National Institute of Oilseed Products, I will say to the committee that the
amendments are satisfactory. We recognize the fact that you will pass upon
amendments without regard to any agreements or understanding we may have; but if
the amendments are satisfactory to the committee, they are entirely satisfactory
to the crushers. Judge Williamson, who is vice president and general counsel of
the El Dorado Oil Works, which is the oldest oil-crushing establishment on the
Pacific coast, is present, and I will say that we see no objection to the
passage of the measure in its substantive essence with the amendments that Mr.
Hester has approved.
The
Chairman: The Chair would like to state that he is very much gratified to know
that an understanding has been reached between the interests that Judge Lozier
represents and the Treasury Department. I regret that I was unable to be here
yesterdaybecause of another pressing appointment with General Hines. We are glad
to have had a statement by Judge Lozier, a former able and diligent Member of
the House, and I believe I voice the sentiment of each member of the committee
who has served with Judge Lozier when I say that he would not appear before this
or any other committee on behalf of any client on any proposition that he could
not conscientiously and fully justify.
Mr.
Lozier: I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr.
Fuller: I would like to ask Judge Lozier a question, because I was not here when
the other gentleman made his statement. As I understand this agreement, you have
agreed upon an amendment whereby you exempt from the operation of the bill all
dealers who handle oil from the seed.
Mr.
Lozier: The definition includes every particle of the marihuana plant, or the
Cannabis sativa. L. plant, including the mature fruitage of the seed, up to the
time the seeds are pressed and the oil or cake is extracted. At that point the
definition ends, and the Government would have no supervision whatsoever over
the oil, cake, or meal in the channels of trade and commerce.
Mr.
Fuller: The other point I want to reach is this: Would Mr. Williamson, for
instance, who imports these seeds for the purpose of obtaining oil by crushing
them, be exempted entirely from all regulations under these amendments?
Mr.
Lozier: No; this bill as originally framed, and in the form to which we have
agreed, brings the importer, the manufacturer, the processor, and the compounder
under the regulatory provisions of the bill up to the point where the seed
ceases to be seed
and
become either cake or oil. The crushers must register, they must pay the
occupational tax, and make their reports from time to time, as required by the
Treasury Department.
Mr.
Fuller: In order that they may know where the seed goes.
Mr.
Lozier: Yes.
Now,
may I say this, that the gentlemen whom I represent developed the hempseed-oil
industry at a time when there was a great need for drying oils. We only produced
from one-third to one-half the drying oils used in this country, and the need
for drying oils became more acute because of the constantly declining production
of flax in this country. The linoleum industry, the paint industry, and the
varnish and lacquer industry, as well as the soap industry, and the building
industry are looking for means which will enable them to have more generous
supplies of these drying oils. They have no objection whatever to any regulation
which Congress sees fit to make which will have for its object, or will
accomplish, the ultimate and paramount proposal embodied in this bill; but we do
think the bill originally went entirely too far.
I
want to say in justice to Mr. Hester that we found him to be very reasonable. We
found that he had an open mind, and we found his attitude receptive, and with a
disposition to be fair.
So
far as my clients are concerned, I am very much gratified that this major
objection has been eliminated, or will be provided the suggested compromise
meets the approval of the ways and Means Committee.
I
thank you.
The
Chairman: The House is meeting at 11 o'clock today, and we will have to adjourn
shortly. Are there any witnesses who desire to be heard tomorrow?
Mr.
McDonald: My name is M.Q. MacDonald [sic], and I am general counsel of the
National Paint, Varnish, and Lacquer Association.
We
concur in what Judge Lozier has said, and the agreement, or tentative agreement,
is entirely satisfactory to us. I would like to submit a statement for the
record, if that is agreeable to the committee.
The
Chairman: That will be entirely agreeable.
Dr.
Woodward: Mr. Chairman, I am the legislative counsel of the American Medical
Association, and would like very much to be heard. If the committee prefers, I
will file a brief if I am given reasonable time for that purpose.
Mr.
Cooper: Would you prefer to be heard by the committee, Doctor?
Dr.
Woodward: I would prefer to be heard by the committee.
The
Chairman: In view of the organization he represents, I think he should be heard
by the committee.
Mr.
Scarlett: Mr. Chairman, my name is Raymond G. Scarlett, representing William G.
Scarlett &;Co., seed merchants of Baltimore. We represent the interest of
the feed manufacturers on this subject, which is a little different angle from
that which has been presented heretofore. We would like to be heard at some
time.
The
Chairman: We will ask you to be here tomorrow morning.
Mr.
Scarlett: I'll be present.
The
Chairman: We will now adjourn to meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
(Thereupon
the committee adjourned, to meet tomorrow, Friday, Apr. 30, 1937, at 10 a.m.)
TAXATION OF MARIHUANA
FRIDAY,
APRIL 30, 1937
House
of Representatives,
Committee
on Ways and Means
Washington,
D.C.
The
committee met at 10 a.m., Hon Robert L. Doughton (chairman) presiding.
The
Chairman: The committee will be in order. Yesterday the chairman was informed
there was some disagreement in connection with some provisions of the bill, by
people engaged in the processing of seed or some objection to parts of the bill
we have under consideration.
The
chairman suggested to Mr. Hester that he have a conference with the people
representing that industry to see if it was possible to reach an agreement and
remove the objection they had by some change or modification of the bill, but
which would warrant them in withdrawing their objection.
Mr.
Hester, has there been any development in that direction or any progress made?
ADDITIONAL
STATEMENT OF CLINTON M. HESTER,
ASSISTANT
GENERAL COUNSEL,
OFFICE
OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Mr.
Hester: Yes, sir. We had an extended conference with these gentlemen yesterday,
and they are both here this morning, and I think they would like to be heard for
a moment.
The
Chairman: If they will come forward, we will be glad to hear any statement they
care to make.
STATEMENT
OF RAYMOND G. SCARLETT,
REPRESENTING
WILLIAM G. SCARLETT &;CO.,
BALTIMORE,
MD.
Mr.
Scarlett: Mr. Chairman. I might say there are only two representatives of the
seed industry here today, because it so happens that our trade association,
which represents 90 percent of the seed dealers in the country, is now in
session in Chicago, and one of the things in which they are engaged is the
drafting of suggestions for provisions for the Federal regulation of seed, and
our counsel could not be here for that reason.
We
handle a considerable quantity of hempseed annually for use in pigeon feeds.
That is a necessary ingredient in pigeon feed because it contains an oil
substance that is a valuable ingredient of pigeon feed, and we have not been
able to find any seed that
will
take its place.
If
you substitute anything for the hemp, it has a tendency to change the character
of the squabs produced; and if we were deprived of the use of hempseed, it would
affect all of the pigeon producers in the United States, of which I understand
there are upwards of 40,000.
The
Chairman: Does that seed have the same effect on pigeons as the drug has on
individuals?
Mr.
Scarlett: I have never noticed it. It has a tendency to bring back the feathers
and improve the birds.
We
are not interested in spreading marihuana, or anything like that. We do not want
to be drug peddlers.
But
it has occurred to us that if we could sterilize the seed there would be no
possibility of the plant being produced from the seeds that the pigeons might
throw on the ground.
The
Chairman: If you were permitted to use this seed for that purpose, and it was
sterilized, would that eliminate your objection?
Mr.
Scarlett: Yes, sir, that is the agreement we have reached with the Treasury
representatives of with Mr. Hester's committee.
Mr.
Thompson: What is the process of sterilization?
Mr.
Scarlett: The germination in the seed can be killed by the application of heat
and moisture.
Mr.
Thompson: By the use of steam?
Mr.
Scarlett: They have regular bins in which they put it and they run temperatures
up to a certain number of degrees and leave the seed there for a certain period,
and that kills all of the germinative powers in the seed.
The
Chairman: By heating it?
Mr.
Scarlett: Yes, sir. There has been an amendment proposed to section 1 (b) by
excluding from the definition of marihuana sterilized seed which is incapable of
germination, so that section 1 (b), as so amended, would read as follows:
The
term "marihuana" includes all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa. L.,
whether growing or not: the seeds thereof: the resin extracted from any part of
such plant: and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or
preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin: but shall not include the mature
stalks of such plant, oil, or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any
compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature
stalks, oil, or cake, and the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable
of germination.
To
that exception we agree.
The
Chairman: Suppose it should develop that in your efforts to sterilize the seed
you should not be successful, and that the same conditions existed in the seed
as exist in its present form, and that those conditions would continue, then
would you object to legislation necessary to protect the people from the
deleterious effects of this drug?
Mr.
Scarlett: No, sir; but that could be very easily accomplished, because at the
present time the seed industry is under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Agriculture. When we import any seed, such as clover, for instance, the Federal
law provides that the imported seed must be in such a condition that it will
keep out injurious weeds, so we will not get any seed that will produce this
plant.
The
Chairman: Did you discuss with Mr. Hester the question as to what would be the
procedure in the event experience should demonstrate that you could not be
successful in what you propose to do?
Mr.
Scarlett: If we cannot prove that the seed is sterilized, after the Treasury
representatives have taken tests of the seed, they do not have to release it.
We
are willing to leave the seed under their jurisdiction until it can be proved to
their satisfaction that it has been sterilized.
Mr.
Cooper: I am sure you appreciate the fact that this is a highly technical phase
of the question that you are discussing; that is true is it not? The treatment
of seed and the elimination of injurious elements that may appear there is
rather technical in its
nature
is it not?
Mr.
Scarlett: We do not consider it very technical, because it is an accepted fact
that the germination quality would be destroyed by heat.
Mr.
Cooper: It is technical in that it requires expert treatment in handling, does
it not?
Mr.
Scarlett: If you take a sample seed and put it on your window sill or over your
radiator and leave it there for any length of time, the germinative qualities
will be killed.
Mr.
Cooper: That is all right, but it takes somebody who knows his business to know
that, does it not? I would not know how to do it.
Mr.
Scarlett: All you have to do is to put a container with seed in it on the
radiator and leave it there for a while and the germinative qualities will be
killed.
Mr.
Cooper: It requires some technical knowledge and experience to give it proper
treatment, does it not?
Mr.
Scarlett: It requires the application of heat. It does not require any technical
knowledge to apply the heat.
Mr.
cooper: But it takes somebody who knows his business, and who knows something
about seed and plants to know what treatment is required, does it not?
Mr.
Scarlett: Yes, sir.
Mr.
Cooper: That is what I am getting at.
In
view of the fact that there is a technical element involved, do you not think it
would be helpful if you would advise with the officials of the Government who
have training and knowledge in reference to this subject to see whether a
proposal such as you have made can be worked out?
Mr.
Scarlett: I have done so. I talked with Mr. Edgar Brown of the Bureau of Plant
Industry, and he informed me that it can be done.
Mr.
Cooper: Have you conferred with Mr. Hester and other representatives of the
Treasury Department here?
Mr.
Scarlett: We have, sir.
The
Chairman: Before you came in, Mr. cooper, I Stated that I had requested Mr.
Hester yesterday to have a conference with these other gentlemen representing
the industry, to see whether or not they could reach an agreement, and he
advised me that they had done so. This gentleman is explaining the proposed
amendment, and Mr. Hester will later explain the nature of the agreement that
they reached and the amendment that is proposed.
Mr.
Disney: What is the relation between hempseed and marihuana?
Mr.
Scarlett: Until Monday of this week we did not know there was any connection
between the two. When this bill came out and we saw that it was called a bill to
impose an occupational excise tax upon dealers in marihuana we paid no attention
to it.
Nobody
in the seed trade refers to hempseed as marihuana.
Hempseed
is a harmless ingredient used for many years in the seed trade. they say that
hemp and marihuana are one and the same thing, but it was not until Monday that
we knew they were.
Mr.
Disney: That is as far as the trade is concerned?
Mr.
Scarlett: Yes, sir. The trade at large do not know that this bill under
consideration contains any provision affecting them, because the title of the
bill would give them no knowledge that it was hempseed that was under
discussion.
Mr.
Reed: I want to get it clearly in my mind that this marihuana and the ordinary
hemp that we hear about are the same thing. The plant is the same?
Mr.
Scarlett: Yes, sir.
Mr.
Reed: There is no difference?
Mr.
Scarlett: No, sir; that is, to my knowledge.
Mr.
Reed: Can anybody answer that question?
Mr.
Hester: That is right.
Mr.
Disney: Do you mean field hemp?
Mr.
Reed: Yes; I am talking about field hemp. I want to get that clear.
The
Chairman: Is not one a manufactured product and the other the substance from
which it is made? The hempseed is the substance from which the marihuana is
produced, is it not?
Mr.
Scarlett: No, sir; marihuana is produced from the resin of the female flowers or
blossoms.
The
Chairman: It comes from hempseed?
Mr.
Scarlett: Yes, sir; but in India when they produce marihuana, they are very
careful to go through the fields and pick out the male plant, so that they will
not fertilize the female plant.
The
Chairman: If you had no hemp weed, you would have no marihuana, would you?
Mr.
Scarlett: That is correct; that is the reason I said we would sterilize the
seed.
Mr.
Reed: Several people have talked to me about marihuana and they have impressed
me with the fact, that they are different plants. I think that ought to be
cleared up in the public mind, so that we may know we are dealing with hemp. It
appears that it is grown in back yards, but I suppose a good many people have
the idea that it is some sort of new species of plant in this country.
Mr.
Disney: Down in our part of the country I understand marihuana grows everywhere,
just as an ordinary weed. I would like to get a clear understanding on that.
Mr.
Reed: In other words, it is hemp growing wild, is it not?
Mr.
Disney: I do not know.
Mr.
Reed: There seems to be quite a good deal of confusion about it, and the
newspapers are publishing stories about it, and we might as well clear up that
situation and say that we are not dealing with the ordinary hemp plant, wild or
cultivated, if that is right.
Mr.
Hester: That is right.
The
Chairman: Is there any one else who desires to be heard?
STATEMENT
OF JOSEPH B. HERTZFIELD,
MANAGER,
FEED DEPARTMENT,
THE
PHILADELPHIA SEED CO. , PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Mr.
Hertzfield: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard briefly.
The
Chairman: Will you give your full name to the reporter and state whom you
represent?
Mr.
Hertzfield: My name is Joseph B. Hertzfield; I am manager of the feed department
of the Philadelphia Seed Co., of Philadelphia, Pa.
I
want to say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that our firm is heartily in sympathy
with the aims and purposes of this bill, and we have no desire to become parties
to spreading this drug around the country.
We
have been manufacturers of feeds and mixed birdseeds for many years, and in
those mixtures hempseed is a very important item.
Hempseed
is very beneficial because it adds the proper oil to the mixture of and promotes
the growth of feathers, and it is also a general vitalizer. Birds lose their
feathers and hempseed aids considerably in restoring the bird's vitality
quickly. Otherwise there is a delay of two or three months before the bird gets
back into condition, and the hempseed helps to accomplish that purpose.
I
want to second what Mr. Scarlett has just said, and to express our willingness
to have the seed sterilized so that it cannot be grown and thus cause any harm.
This
agreement which has been referred to, that we reached yesterday with Mr. Hester,
is very satisfactory to us, and I would like to ask favorable consideration of
the committee for that agreement.
Mr.
Crowther: Would the sterilization which would prevent the germination remove
such of the drug as exists in the cull or the outside cover of the seed which is
now sometimes used?
Mr.
Hertzfield: I cannot answer that. We have seen evidence by eminent authorities
that there is not any of the drug in the seed.
Mr.
Crowther: Someone testified that there are some particles of the resin on the
outside shell of the seed.
Mr.
Hertzfield: Is that when the seed is mature?
Mr.
Crowther: I understand so.
Mr.
Hertzfield: I have never heard of anybody smoking the seed.
Mr.
Crowther: I thought if there were some particles of resin on the outside of the
seed it might have the same effect as smoking.
Mr.
Hertzfield: In one of these exhibits you have here there is some seed that has
formed but is not matured, and that is possible. The type of seed that we use is
this seed here [indicating exhibit]. That is this brown seed dried and matured.
Mr.
Crowther: You think there is no likelihood of it being anything of that kind?
Mr.
Hertzfield: I doubt it.
The
Chairman: When it comes to your possession is the shell removed?
Mr.
Hertzfield: It is just like that brown seed. That is the way we use it. That is
matured and dry seed.
The
Chairman: Is there any of the residue on the seed when it comes into your
possession?
Mr.
Hertzfield: No; that is gone. When this seed is matured and dry we grind the
shell off in the threshing operation.
I
had occasion to write to the Bureau of Plant Industry in the Department of
Agriculture about this in 1935, and under date of October 4, 1935, I had a
communication from F.D. Richey in which he said:
The
female inflorescence of the plant possesses physiological properties that are
the basis of abuse as a potent drug. The seed is considered to be devoid of such
properties.
It
has been used for such purposes for years, and I have never heard of any ill
effects. On the contrary, it seems to be extremely beneficial.
We
would like to have the privilege of having the use of that seed until it is
definitely proven that the sterilized hempseed should not be used.
Mr.
Disney: As I Stated a while ago, out in our country marihuana is known as an
ordinary weed that grows in back yards, and in any place where plants will grow.
It
is not the ordinary field hemp that is used for fibers?
Mr.
Hester: It is the ordinary field hemp growing wild, or at least without the
extensive cultivation necessary to provide good fiber. The committee may have
been confused because we have used the term marihuana in this bill.
The
reason for that is this. This is the hemp drug, commonly known in Mexico and in
the United States as marihuana. It is just a colloquial term in Mexico, as I
understand it, and means the flowering tops and leaves of the hemp plant, which
may be eaten or smoked. We could not make Cannabis sativa. L., the hemp plant,
the subject of the taxes contained in this bill because it was not intended to
tax the whole plant, but merely the parts of the plant which contain the drug.
The parts of the plant which contain the drug are commonly known as marihuana,
so taxes were imposed upon "marihuana."
In
addition I might say that some people say that the marihuana seed should be
called fruit, because, botanically speaking, it is a fruit, not a seed. However,
it is known commercially and commonly as a seed, and that is the reason we have
used the term.
Mr.
Disney: I notice that in section 1, at the beginning of the bill, in subdivision
(c) it says that the producer is one--who (1) plants, grows, cultivates, or in
any way facilitates the natural growth of marihuana; (2) harvests and transfers
or makes use of marihuana; or (3) fails to destroy marihuana within 10 days
after notice that such marihuana is growing upon land under his control.
To
what extent do you expect to go along that line, where it is an ordinary weed?
Mr.
Hester: The person on whose land the plant was growing wild would be notified by
the Treasury Department that he has this plant growing on his land, and if he
did not destroy the weed, he would become a producer under the bill and subject
to the tax. He would not be committing a crime if he failed to cut it and would
merely have to pay a tax.
Mr.
Lewis: Suppose he is not raising it for the market.
Mr.
Hester: If a person cultivates it, he would be producing it; he would become a
producer under the bill.
Mr.
Lewis: Without raising it for the market?
Mr.
Hester: That is right. That is the only way it can be handled, I believe. Since
this plant will grow wild, a person might evade the occupational tax on
producers by stating to the internal revenue agent that the plant was growing
wild.
Mr.
Lewis: You mean that if he goes out and digs it up as a weed?
Mr.
Hester: No; if you have a farm and it is growing on your farm wild, and the
Government agent sees it growing there, and they notify you what it is, then you
are required to destroy that. If you do not, then you become a producer and
subject to the
occupational
tax.
Mr.
Lewis: How widely distributed is it as a weed?
Mr.
Hester: Mr. Anslinger said it will grow in practically all the States wild.
The
Chairman: I would like to know about the process of destroying it, if it grows
wild on a man's farm. I have had considerable experience in trying to destroy
weeds, and it requires a lot of expense. Who would defray the expense required
in fighting and destroying that weed.
Mr.
Hester: This is the thing to remember, that if he did not destroy he would
simply become a producer under this bill and have to pay a small occupational
tax, and the Government would know it is there. He does not have to destroy it
if he does not want
to,
but if he does not, he pays a small occupational tax.
Mr.
Lewis: How much?
Mr.
Hester: $25 a year.
Mr.
Reed: I know something about farming, although I am not familiar with the manner
in which this plant spreads. I know that we have tried on our farms to keep out
certain weeds, but could not do it because the expense is too great.
You
will have a revolution on your hands if, as you say, this plant grows generally
throughout the country and you try to charge the farmers a tax of $25, as you
said.
Mr.
Hester: Suppose the poppy from which you extract opium grew wild; you would have
exactly the same situation. That is the only way in which it can be controlled.
Mr.
Reed: I think that is the most serious question that has come up in connection
with this bill.
Take,
for instance wild carrots. I defy any farmer to eliminate them unless and until
he summer-fallows the ground.
Mr.
Hester: The purpose of this is not to put the producer to any expense where it
grows wild, but to require him to notify the Government he has marihuana growing
on his place. The way we do that is by putting on the occupational tax. Do you
think farmers would be willing to cooperate with the Government in stamping out
this marihuana by paying a small tax?
Mr.
Reed: Do you imagine that all through our country where a farmer has, say, 25
acres, they are going to pay an occupational tax of $25?
Mr.
Hester: You gentlemen here in congress, of course, can fix the occupational tax
at any amount that you see fit. That is merely a suggestion.
Mr.
Disney: I would like to know this: When I see these weeds growing as they do in
our part of the country, I imagine there is enough marihuana growing in one back
yard to enable a man to get on several hilarious drunks. I would like to know
what happens when that weed is growing there.
Mr.
Hester: The Government has to notify you under the bill.
Mr.
Disney: I am trying to think of it and get some information in a practical way.
Of course, I am in favor of the main purpose of the bill-- to stamp out the use
of the drug.
Mr.
Reed: I would go the limit to accomplish that purpose also; but you have a very
serious problem here, if this grows wild as many weeds do.
Mr.
Hester: Here is the situation. Most of you gentlemen are lawyers, and you know
you have to have an occupational tax to have a revenue bill. You would have to
impose some kind of an occupational tax on a farmer. What the amount of the
occupational tax will be is entirely a matter for the committee to decide.
We
only require them to notify the Government.
Mr.
Disney: This is just a start, and it ought to be a good start. But are you not
going pretty far when you make a man a producer when he innocently grows wild
marihuana on his land?
Mr.
Hester: If you do not take wild marihuana into consideration, you cannot control
this at all. That is all this does.
If
I were an inspector and I came to you, and I knew where the marihuana was, and
told you had it growing on your place, you might say, "I am not going to
destroy it; that is very expensive. But I will pay a small occupational
tax." That is when the Government knows it is growing on your place.
Mr.
Reed: The they will destroy it?
Mr.
Hester: Congress has made appropriations to the Department of Agriculture to
permit the inspectors of that Department to go throughout the country and
destroy plants which are dangerous to farmers because they produce plant
diseases. If you can suggest some substitute, we will be very glad to have it.
Mr.
Disney: I do not know about that.
Mr.
Reed: I do not want to weaken this bill; I want to help you to carry out its
purpose in every possible way.
Mr.
Disney: I do not want to weaken it, either.
Mr.
Reed: But I can see a lot of trouble unless this is properly worked out, because
if you are going to start on a program of exterminating some weed, a weed that
grows generally throughout the United States, you are undertaking a program that
will be difficult and expensive.
Mr.
Hester: In 1914 the Harrison Narcotic Act provided for doing the same thing,
which included the word "producer", and the only thing is that it so
happens poppies cannot be grown in the United States.
Mr.
Reed: That is quite different.
Mr.
Hester: It does not seem to me to be an undue hardship to put a small
occupational tax on a person who has this growing wild on his land. The
Government could get no information whatsoever from him otherwise. It is the
only way the Government could get any information as to where this is growing
wild.
Mr.
Reed: But the next step is to destroy this weed?
Mr.
Hester: Not necessarily to destroy it, but so that the Government will know
where it is. There is no provision in the bill that requires them to destroy it.
It says to the farmer, if you do not destroy it within 10 days, you will have to
qualify as a producer and pay a small occupational tax.
Mr.
Reed: What is the Government going to do then; put a man there to watch it?
Mr.
Hester: No.
Mr.
Reed: How will it stamp it out?
Mr.
Hester: In the final analysis, if the man, the farmer, does not want to pay the
small occupational tax, he will have to destroy it himself, or Congress will
have to make an appropriation for the Department of Agriculture which will
permit them to send people throughout the country to stamp it out.
Mr.
Crowther: they could make them cut it down before it reaches the flowering
stage, and that would do it, would it not?
Mr.
Hester: Yes; that is right. We are proceeding with a new thing, and it is a
serious menace. They would probably do it voluntarily; we cannot require them to
do it unless we have them pay a small occupational tax.
Mr.
Reed: You are looking at it from the Government-bureau point of view, and I am
looking at it from the practical farmer's side, with this weed spreading all
over creation.
If
this weed has spread so that it has become a menace, the farmer will have to
hire men to go through his meadows and cut out this weed, and the expense will
be greater than you realize.
Does
this hemp spread as other weeds do?
Mr.
Hester: Dr. Dewey is the botanist, and I would like to have him make a statement
in reference to that.
Mr.
Reed: I want to get at the bottom of this thing before we get into a lot of
trouble.
Mr.
Fuller: Do you know whether or not just cutting out this weed will kill it?
Dr.
Dewey: I think it can be killed easily. It is, in fact, a plant growing only
from seeds, and can be exterminated once and for all by merely cutting it down
before it goes to seed.
Mr.
Fuller: If the seed is on the ground, it may be covered up and may keep covered
up for years.
Dr.
Dewey: Of course, it is all introduced from the type that is distributed from
birds, and the birdseed does come up year after year from self-sown seed, but
the type that is grown for fiber production does not.
For
more than 35 of the years that I was working on these things I was working on
the fibers.
Mr.
Fuller: You do not mean to convey the idea that one cutting with a sickle would
eliminate it, do you, because, as I understand it, it grows in proximity to
river banks and creeks.
Dr.
Dewey: Ordinarily one cutting would eliminate it. There might be some seeds that
would remain the next year. I have seen it growing year after year in the same
place when it was not cut because no stock would eat it.
Mr.
Fuller: Does it grow in wild land?
Dr.
Dewey: No; it grows in open land, sometimes at the edge of the woods, but not in
the woods.
Mr.
Fuller: It grows around creeks and river banks?
Dr.
Dewey: Yes; on open land and waste land.
Mr.
Fuller: That would mean as a general rule that you could not cut it with a
mowing machine.
Dr.
Dewey: Ordinarily it is rarely in areas large enough where you could use a
mowing machine to cut it.
The
largest area that I ever saw it growing in was at the Twin Cities in Minnesota,
where it grew year after year, near a railroad, and I think there was a quarter
of an acre of ground there.
Mr.
Lewis: Mr. Hester, have you fully canvassed the proficiency of a scheme that
will limit the penalties to instances where it is grown for market, or where it
is picked for market?
Mr.
Hester: You mean distinguishing between a producer so-called under the act as a
man on whose land it grows wild, and one who cultivates it?
Mr.
Lewis: Yes.
Mr.
Hester: No; we have not made a distinction, but we will be glad to consider
that.
Mr.
Lewis: I wish you would because it seems to me you might draw a distinction like
that. This plant might grow wild and some man might want to pick it for the
market, and then a farmer would be on notice, and he would probably be asked to
pay for it. In that instances the law applies. It is the marketing of it at last
that determines it.
Mr.
Vinson: But would you not have to inject the question of intent?
Mr.
Hester: Here is the situation.
Mr.
Vinson: The gravamen of the offense would be knowledge of the growth?
Mr.
Hester: That is right.
Mr.
Vinson: That is, if there are penalties, you generally use the word
"willfully", and in many instances "knowingly", because it
is the intent with which the thing is done that governs, it seems to me.
I
am in thorough accord with any effort to clean the thing out, but I don not
think it is as significant as it would seem.
Mr.
Hester: The question of intent is not involved here.
Mr.
Vinson: I am speaking of the situation when you go to convict somebody, where
the question of intentionally producing a thing would be involved.
Mr.
Hester: That is right. Here is the situation.
Mr.
Buck: There is nothing in this bill that provides a penalty for knowingly
producing anything.
Mr.
Hester: No.
Mr.
Buck: There is merely the failure to register that is involved.
Mr.
Hester: Under this bill, if you grow this wild, it is the duty of the Government
to notify you; and if you do not destroy it within a certain length of time
after you are notified, then you are required to qualify as a producer and pay
some small occupational tax. And the only reason for that is that that is the
only way the Government can acquire information and know where it is growing
wild.
Mr.
Vinson: A person would have to have knowledge that he is growing it before he
can be convicted of any crime or misdemeanor.
Mr.
Hester: That is right. The bill requires the Government to notify him. Until he
has such notice he is not subject to the producers' tax and, of course, couldn't
be prosecuted for evading the tax.
Mr.
Lewis: Does it seem to you gentlemen who have studied the subject with a view to
eliminating the evil that the growth of this plant must be completely
eliminated?
Mr.
Hester: It will have to be under control in order to prevent evasion of the
producers' tax.
Mr.
Dingell: Mr. Hester, do you not believe that the average farmer would be willing
to use a mowing machine or scythe if he thought that in that way or any way at
all after a year or 2 years he could exterminate and kill the weed which kills
people?
Mr.
Hester: I would be amazed if they would not, but as Mr. Reed points out, the
preponderant consideration there is not of money.
Mr.
Dingell: I think that, perhaps, only a fractional part of the farmers would be
unwilling to cooperate in this.
Mr.
Hester: I think so.
Mr.
Dingell: Wherever they assume a different attitude, and are unwilling to do this
in the public interest, they should be forced to eliminate the weeds.
Mr.
Hester: We do not even compel them to eliminate the weeds under this provision.
If they fail to do that, they would have to pay this occupational tax, make
reports and returns, and we would know from that where the weeds were.
Mr.
Dingell: Of course, there are some people who rebel against the payment of just
taxes, some who rebel against any law. There was a cow war out in Iowa where
they had to call out the militia and force the farmers to submit their cattle to
the tuberculin test. They were willing to sell infected milk to people in the
cities and cared not about the danger to their customers.
The
Chairman: You must know how difficult this work of extermination would be. Some
people talk about taking mowing machines and destroying these weeds, but on some
farms you could not use mowing machines for any such purpose because of the
roughness of the ground and rocks. If they undertook to do it with scythes, on
some large farms it would take hundreds of men. It would be an almost impossible
undertaking to remove these weeds to the extent of exterminating them.
Dr.
Dewey: I was in the Department of Agriculture from 1890 to 1935. During the
first 10 years, my work was chiefly on weeds and how to kill them. The last 30
years I had charge of the work with fiber-producing plants like hemp. This work
required travel in all parts of the country, and I learned to look for weeds
from the car windows or wherever I found them.
Thousands
of letters came to me asking about weeds and, so far as I can recall, there were
only four asking about hemp as a weed and in these instances it was not a
troublesome weed but merely a new plant that looked like a weed to the farmer
who asked the question. Although I was looking for weeds and all plants that
might be troublesome as weeds, I never found the hemp plant to be a really
troublesome weed.
In
one instance, it appeared in a crop of oats that had followed a hemp crop the
previous season and the hemp had been permitted to become overripe so that the
seeds fell off before the hemp was harvested. The plants were scattered through
the oat field of about 5 or 6 acres, but one man could have easily pulled them
all out in less than half a day. They did not come up the following year.
Hemp
is an annual plant, growing only from the seeds. It does not have a perennial
root or root stocks like Canada thistle or Johnson grass and therefore, it may
be easily exterminated by cutting it before the seeds are produced. Furthermore,
if the stalks are cut off, they do not send up branches from the stubble.
Cutting but once, therefore, kills the plant.
When
it grows as a weed, it does not produce many seeds, and it does not spread
rapidly as do wild carrots, which Mr. Reed mentioned, and other really
troublesome weeds. It grows as a weed along roadsides, railways, in waste lands,
on overflowed lands along rivers and where seed from bird cages has been thrown
out in back yards. It is almost invariably in good fertile soil and in the
open-- never in woods or swamps. This weed type often reseeds itself and
persists in the same place year after year provided it is not cut down or any of
the plants disturbed. Stock do not eat the plants. As a weed, the plants are
usually only a few in a place or at most a few square rods.
The
largest plant of hemp known to me as a weed was in a waste land along the
railway between St. Paul and Minneapolis. I watched this plant every year or two
for a period of at least 10 or 15 years and it did not increase materially in
size. There were possible about 15 square rods growing where the seeds could
easily have scattered out, but there seemed to be no stragglers.
These
plants could have been easily cut down by one man in less than 2 hours.
If
the plants are cut before they produce seeds, they would be easily exterminated.
A few dormant seeds may come up the following season or even the second season,
but the plants are usually so conspicuous as to be easily found and they are not
abundant so as to require excessive work in cutting them. Hemp never persists as
a weed in cultivated land. The weed type has nearly solid stalks, different from
the hollow stalk of the fiber producing type. Seeds of the fiber type do not
produce persistent weeds.
It
is believed that if bird seeds are treated so that they will not germinate, the
source of hemp as weeds will be eliminated. The extermination of the hemp as a
weed would be very much less difficult than the extermination of the common
barberry, which has been done to safeguard farmers against wheat rust or the
extermination of wild currants to save the white pine trees from the white-pine
blister rust. Both of those plants were widely distributed and, having perennial
roots, they had to be dug out, while hemp has merely to be cut off. In each
case, the efforts have been successful and the rust on wheat and on the white
pines has decreased.
Mr.
Crowther: Has there been any increase in the use of this marihuana drug during
the last year or two, in cigarettes, or otherwise?
Mr.
Hester: I will have to refer that question to Commissioner Anslinger.
Mr.
Anslinger: There has been.
Mr.
Crowther: According to a brief that has been submitted, as a rule the addict
passes into a dreamy State, in which judgement is lost, the imagination runs
rampant; he is subject to bizarre ideas, lacking in continuity, and losing all
sense of the measurement
of
time and space. I was wondering if there was a very marked increase in the
smoking of this drug in cigarettes last year, following the period of September
and October.
Mr.
Anslinger: It has been on the increase.
Mr.
Crowther: Has it increased lately?
Mr.
Anslinger: There has been a decided increase in the number of seizures, or the
number of seizures in 1936 over the number in 1935.
Mr.
Vinson: Would you say that a prolonged period of suffering over a period of
several years would have anything to do with the forming of the habit?
Mr.
Anslinger: No, sir. I might say, with respect to the question of the farmers
destroying the weeds that we have found a number of instances where the weed was
growing on property, and when we have called it to the attention of the property
owners, we have found that they have not only gladly cooperated in destroying
the weeds but they have destroyed them by
burning
with a view to getting rid of them entirely. We have never found a case where a
property owner has not cooperated with us in getting rid of this destructive
weed.
Mr.
Hester: Just a moment ago some question was raised with reference to the
sterilization of seed, and this is the situation there: There are two reasons
for including seed-- first, because of their use in growing the weed, and
second, because of the smoking of the seed. Mr. Dewey, who is the expert of the
Department of Agriculture, does say that the sterilization of the seed would
make it impossible to use them for growing purposes, but these gentlemen are not
in a position to say that the sterilization
of
seed will likewise remove any marihuana from them. On the other hand, we are not
in a position to say that sterilization will not remove the marihuana. It seems
to us that the burden of proof is on the Government there, when we might injure
a legitimate industry, to submit evidence to this committee that sterilization
will not remove marihuana from the seed.
Mr.
Lewis: How is the sterilization of the seed effected-- by heat?
Mr.
Hester: Yes, sir; by the application of heat. Under the circumstances, we feel
that we should submit to the Secretary of the Treasury the question as to
whether the Treasury Department would object to the proposed amendment which
will except from the definition of the term marihuana sterilized seeds, which
have been made incapable of germination. If the Secretary has no objection, we
will advise the committee. Then, if at some later date it develops from
experience or chemical analysis that marihuana is still in the seeds after
sterilization and that they are being smoked throughout the country, we might
have to come before the committee again and propose an amendment which would
strike out this language, and revert to the situation at the present time under
the bill as it stands. We have discussed the matter with these gentlemen, and
they are agreeable to that
proposition
if the Secretary has no objection and the committee approves.
The
Chairman: In other words, you would test the practicability of that method.
Mr.
Hester: Yes, sir.
Mr.
Crowther: It would be like treating fats to make them inedible.
Mr.
Hester: Yes, sir. The amendment reads--
Sterilized
seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.
We
think that takes care of the situation.
The
Chairman: We thank you for your statement.
(Thereupon
the committee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.)
| 
Custom Search
