BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY /\ I
Illllilllilli '^'
3 9999 06542 020 8
OFFICE OF NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION OF REVIEW
WORK MATERIALS
No. 31
THE FISHERY INDUSTRY AND Tffi FISHERY CODES
Prepared by
JOHN R. ARNOLD
.. • .-.
\
Industry Studies Section
Januaiy, 1936
POSEWORD
This report on "The Fishery Industry and the Fishery Codes"
was prepared "by Mr. John H. Arnold of the Industry Studies Section,
Ivir. M. D. Vincent in charge.
The report is concerned primarily nith the IT, R. A. Fishery
Codes, hut the specialized character of the Fishery Industry has
made it necessary to give considerahle attention to the industrial
"background. The first half of the report deals mainly with this
"background, while the second half is concerned primarily with the
codes, their administration, and effects. The Fishery Industry, as
defined for I]. E. A. purposes, included the wholesale distrihution
and processing of fish and shell-fish, as well as fishing in the
strict sense. Besides the ivlaster Code or National Code, there were
twelve approved supi:)! ementary codes, and two or three independent
codes for certain suhdi visions. This complexity has made it ex-
pedient to treat details concisely,, and to examine especially the
"broader aspects of the suliject matter.
The Appendix on "The Earnings of Fishermen and of Enterprises
in the Fishing Industr;r" is the first study of the kind to "be at-
tempted. It has been largelj^ drawn on in writing the report on the
codes.
"The Fishery Industry and the Fishery Codes" presented herein,
was not carried to the point originally contemplated due to curtail-
ments of personnel unforeseen when the work was "begun. Nevertheless,
mimeographing of the material which was prepared is Justified as an
aid to further work in the field.
At the "back of this report a "brief statement of the studies
undertaken "by the Division of Heview will "be found.
L. C. Marshall
Director, Division of Review.
Fe'braarj'- 1, 1936.
9581
13 Nly 36 g
IIAJBLE OF COKTEHTS
Chapter Page
I - SCOPE OP THE STUDY AIJD lESCRIPTIOH OP THE IKDUSTRY
Definition of the Industry 14
The Code Stmcture 14
Scope' 0 f the' Repo rt 14
Orgaxiization' of the !7hol'e sibling and Processing Indus-
tries. 14
Participation of Wholesalers and Processors in the
Prilnars'- Pi-oduction 15
Specialized SuhiridMstries. 16
Detai'le'd Classification of the Suhindustries and the
Codes. ....<. 16
Perishability of Products and the Trade Organization 18
Distri'bution of Nonperisha'ble Products 18
Retail Distrihution of Fishery Products • 19
' ' ■ Exclusion of 'Certain Groups frora the Pisherj'" Code
''Industry ..., 19
The Factor of Interstate Trade - The East 20
' "The Pacific Coast and Interstate Trade 21
Trade 'Organi zations 21
Advantage of a Code Sj^stera Trith Respect to Trade
Organization. . , . , , 22
'la'bor Organization '- General .-.■ 22
lalidr Organization in the Processing and Wholesaling
Industries 22
Lahor Activity in the Fisheries Proper 23
II ■- THE PRODUCT I Oil 'OF THE INDUSTRY
The 'Gross •■Volume of Business , 24
■ The Primary Production Since 1929 24
■ 'The "Outstanding Species , 26
■ The Escport ' Trade 27
The Competition of Imports 27
The Per Capita Demand for Fishery Products 31
Decline in Consumer Demand in the Nineteenth Centurj'' 31
Unfavora'ble Comjjetitive Position and Possible Remedies 32
The Natural Supply and the Prohlera of- Conservation 32
Thfe Conservation Pro'blem and the Codes. 33
III ■- THE PRICES OF FISHERY PRODUCTS
Prifces to Primary Producers 34
■ Prices' to Wliolesalers and processors , 35
■ The Pi-ice Deflation and the Financial Position of
Fishery Enterprises 36
Relationship of Fish and Meat Prices 36
The Stud;;- of Mackerel and Lieat ' Prices . . ; . 37
Bearing of the Comparison on the Control of Fishery
Price s ......•.;...,... 37
The 'Spread Between Prices to Producers and to Consiiniers. . . . 38
9581
«i-
TaTjle of Contents (Cont'd)
Chapter
III -
(Cont'd)
IV - r-.
Eie Price Spread in an Illustrative Case...
Relative Al)sence of I.Ionopolistic Practices.
ES11A3LI.SHMEHT S. MD. MTESPRISES
Pai£;e
. 38
. 39
.Tlie. .Vessel,, 3.o.at .and .Shore. Pisheries 41
The Humter of Pishing Vessels 41
. .The .Qraiership, .o.f .Pishing .V.G.ss.els................ 41
The Life and Age of Pishing Vessels 42
. The .ll-umljer .and .Ownership, .o.f, .Pishing Boats. 42
. .The -Size of Jlishing .pnte.rp.r.iqes 42
Wholesaling and Processing Establishments 43
V . .-. , P.ERSOMEL AKD VOLUl/IE OP ElvIPLOIlIEITT
.... P.ersonnel .o.f .The Primary Producing Industrj^ 46
Regalar and Casual Pishermen 47
Characteristics o.f ,the .Personnel of the Pisheries 47
The .Size .of .Pishing Crews 47
.... The .Productivity of Pishing Lahor ..■...■ 48
Periods .of .ActiYQ .EiijplQSTnent .in ,the Pisheries. 48
Infrequency of Su.ppleraentary Employment or Earnings 48
Employment .in ,the .lilholesaling .Epad ^Processing Industries. ... 49
Seasonality ,of .EoplojOTent-,, • 51
Total Personnel of the Pishery Industry. 52
VI . .-r . .HOURS , OP .lAUOR . . • " ', ' ' ■ ." ' '
Hours in the Primary Producing Industry............. 54
Hours in the Processing and Wholesaling Industries 54
.Average . Hours .in . the .Wholesaling Trades. 55
.Hours. in. the .Canned. Salmon Industry 55
Hours, in the. California. Sardine Industry'-. 55
.Hours, in. the .Presh. Oyster, Industry, ,,,.... 56
VII
. EARNINGS . OP . THE PERSOMEL
.Modes of Compensating Pishermen 61
. The . Share System 61
. The. Employee . Status in the Pisheries........ 61
Earnings of Pishermen in 1933 63
Share Earnings in 1929 and 1934. 63
Changes in Earnings from Wages 65
.Pishermen' s. Earnings. and, the Price Cj'-cle ...... -i ■ 65
.Abuses, in. the. Administration of Lays.. 66
The Pishermen Emplojred by Alaska Salmon Canneries. 66
.The. Total. Volxune. of . Compensation, i^l 'the Pisheries 67
.PrerCode. Wages. in, the Wholesaling and Processing
. . . Divisions. .,,,,.... 68
Wage Volune of the Wliolesaling and Processing Indus-
. . tries. ,,,,..,,..,,,,,,,....,,.. f ,, t ft ;f ! t ! r f r 68
Grand Total Wage Volume of the Pishery Industry....... 68
9581
. -ai-
TaMe bK Contents (Cont'd)
Chapter ■ . Page
VIII - THE PISHEEY CODE STHUCTUSS iHD THE WHITINO OF THE COEES
Administrative Control of the . Codes 72
The National Fishery Code 72
Administrative Bodies Under the National Code 72
Defects of the National Code Set-Up 73
What the National Code Pro2,Tai'i Should Have Been 73
Development of the Supplenenta.rjr Codes 74
Causes' of the' Delay in V/riting Sup;;>lementary Codes 74
The Problem of Supplementary Code Areas 75
Office Memorandum No. 228 and the Fishery Codes 76
The Delay in Writing Codes for the Fisheries 76
A Practicaljle System of Fishei-y Codes. 77
A Program for the Preparing and Yi/holesaling Trades 78
I
IX - THE ADMINISTEA.TION OF THE CODES
Handicaps -of -the Code Bodies 79
■ ■ ' ■ "The Proolein of Code Finance 79
Finances- of ■ the National Code Authority 79
Collections and Expenditures of the Committees 80
The' Compliance Pro'blem in General 80
Code- Enforcement Regarded as a Government S.esponsi'bility. . . 80
Actual Developments with Hespect to Conpliance.. 82
Exceptional- Cases of More Effective. Administration 82
' ' ' Few Cases of Highhanded Action "by Code Bodies 83
The Code Bodies and the Collection of Statistics...., C4
X " 'CODE -PROVISIONS EELATIITG TO HOURS OF LABOR
No Restriction of Ho-ars in the 2'isheries Proper. 85
Restriction of Hours in the Preparing and Wholesaling
Trades 85
Restriction of Hours in the Canning Industries 87
The Canned Salmon Code and Hours of Lahor 87
The Aggregate Spread of EiiiplojTnent in the Fishery
Industry , 87
" Compliance with the Maximum Hour Provisions 88
XI - MINIlIUlvi WAGE- PROVISIONS
■ Share Fishermen and the Minimum Wage Program 89
■ The- Minimum Wages and the Wage Fishermen 89
• ■ • Wages, in the Oyster Fishery 91
Wage s on the Great Lake s 91
- Wages In the Menhaden Fishery 91
■ . Minim-um Wages in the Preparing and Wholesaling Trades...... 92
■ ■- - -The .Wages of Oyster Shuckers and Cra'b Pickers..., 92
Minimum Wages in the California Sardine Industry. 93
Minim-UTQ Wages in the Canned Salmon Industry 93
The Minimttm Wages of Emploj'-ee Salmon Fishermen 93
Wages in the New England Sardine Industry 94
Compliance with the Minim-um Wage Provisions 94
Effect of the Minimum Wage Provisions 95
9581
-^ixi-
Table of Contents (Cont'd)
Chapter
XII - THAJDE PHICTICS PHOVISIOIS
Pa^e
XIV
General, pharacteri sties 96
Classif ipation oif Provisions Affecting Prices 96
Prohibition of Destructive Price Cutting 97
The Piling of Open Prices 97
Prohibition of Sales Below Individual Cost... 98
Effect of the Sales Below Cost Provisions 99
Minimum Costs and Prices in Emergencies 99
The_ ProhilDition and Reg-olation of Consignment Sales 100
peculiar Practices in Handling Consignments 100
Effect of Consignment Selling on Prices 101
Effect of the Provisions Relating to Consignments 101
XIII - TRAjDE PRACTICE PROVISIONS: CONTINUED
The, Prohihition of Discriminatory Prices 103
,The Regulation of Credit Terms. . 103
Bases of Price Quotations and Settlements 103
Allowcinces on Claims "by Customers 104
The Diversion of Brokerage. 104
Provisions for the Benefit of Primary Producers 105
Payment for Purchases from Fishermen 105
Provisions Relating to Abuses in the Administration of
rs , 106
Lays
Provisions Relating to the Competition of Imports 106
Complaints and Proceedings with Respect to Import Com-
petition 107
Conservation Provisions in the Fishery Codes..... 107
Provisions Designed to Establish G-rades or Stajidards 108
Minor Trade Practice Provisions , 109
THE CONTROL OP THE ATLANTIC MACKEREL CATCH
The Mackerel Season and the Ports of Landing 110
The Eresh, Freezing and Salting Markets and the Import
Trade.^.^.'. ."..'.'.'. ..'. ..'.'.'..'.'.'.'.....'•..'. .'.'.'.'.'..' , . ...110
The Volunie of the Catch 110
The Price of Mackerel to the Fishermen.,. - Ill
The Costs of the Mackerel Fleet Ill
■Earnings .of the Mackerel Fishermen in 1932. 112
The .Genesis .of the Production Control Provision..... 112
.The .Purposes and .Methods .of the Control 112
The .Control .and the .Quotas .in .1934. 113
■ The Application .for .an .Em.ergency Price and the Control 113
.The Results of the Control : ,. 114
■ The Control and Other Price-Governing Factors ......115
• Statistical Evidence of Price Relationships 116
.Conclusion with Regard to the Production Control.. 116
9581
-xv^
LIST Q-J? TABLES
Talkie Page
I - G-ross Volume of Sales of the Fishery Industry "by Main
Divisions, 1929 and 19G3 24
II - Q,uantity and Value of the fishery Ca-tcii, ty Area,
1908, 1929 and 1933 25
III - Quantity and Value of the ITishery Catch, "by 12 Im-
portazit Species, 1908, 1929 md 1953 28
IV - Exports of Fishery Products, "by Kind of Product, 1929,.
1933 and 1934 29
V - General Imports of Fishery Products, "by Kind of
Product,'^1929-,-1933 and 1934 .' 30
VI - Per Capita Consumption of Fish and Shellfish in Certain
Countries in Recent Years , 31
VII - Average Price per Pound of the Fisher^f Catch, "by Area,
1908, 1929 and 1933 34
VIII - Decline in Average Prices for the Catch of the 12
Most Important Species, 1929-1933 35
IX - Distri"bution of 15 Companies Operating the Largest
Fishing Fleets, "by Value of Catch, 1933 43
X - ]SIum"ber of Establishments in the Fisherj"-, Wholesaling
■ and Processing Industries, 1929, 1931 and 1933 44
XI - Distri'bution of Fish Canning 8n.d Preserving Esta'blish-
ments in the United Sts„tes Proper According to Their
Value of Prod-uct,- 1929 . 44
XII - Distri'bution of the Principal Salt Water Preparing and
Wholesaling Firms in lew York City, According to
their Gross Sales, 1930 and .1933 45
XIII - llum"ber of Persons Engaged in the Fisheries Proper,
"by Area, 1908, 1929 and 1933 46
XIV - Estimated Monthly Variation in the Uum'ber of Persons
Engaged in the Fisheries Proper, 1933.. 49
XV - Employment in Fish Canning and Preserving Esta'blish-
ments in the United States Proper, 1899-1933 50
XVI - Nura^ber of Persons Engaged in the Fishery Processing
and Wholesaling Industries, "by Area, 1929, 1931 and
1933 51
XVII - Monthly Variation in Enplojrment in the Fresh Oj'-ster
Industry, "by Area, 1933 52
9581
-v-
List of Ta"bles (Cont'd)
Tat)le Page
XVIII - Average Pre-Code Weekly Hours of Labor in the Pishery
■■■ 'Preparing 'aiid Tftiolesaling Trades, First Half of 1933..... 57
XIX - Pre-Code 'Weekly Hours of Male Employees in Seven
■'■ Calif (irilia'Sd,Mirie Plants, Season 'of 1933-1934 59
XX - Hours Worked Per Week in the Presh Oyster Industry,
■ • 'Dec6ra'b6r, 1933; ■....; 60
XXI - Principal Types of Laj'-s or Share Agreements in Use on
■ • Fishing "Vessels in 1933, dud Their -Relative Im-
po r tance 62
XXII - 'Average 'Earnings 'Of 'Vessel Fishermen for the Year 1933,
Weighted According to the Total N^umljer in Each
Fishery, by Area 64
XXIII - Estimated Average Annual Earnings from Sliares of
Fishermen on Share Vessels for the Years 1934 and
•■ ■ '1929 , ■ Compared with 1935, by Area. 65
XXIV - Average Pre-Code Weekly Earnings in the Fishery Whole-
sdling'and Processing' Industries, First Half of-1933 69
JDCV - Distribution of Plant Employees in Certain Fishery
' ■ ■ liTliolesaling and Processing Industries, by Pre-Code
Wage Bates.. 70
XXVI - 'Total 'Voltime of Wages and Salaries of the Fishery
Processing and Wholesaling Industries, by Area,
1929 , 1931 and 1933. . 71
XXVII - Advancfe Estimates of the 'First Year Income of Certain
Fishery Code Bodies, Assuming 100 Per Cent Collection
of Assessments 81
XXVIII - Maximum "Hours 'of the Fishery Codes, with the Estimated
Resulting Spread of Employment 86
XXIX - MiniifiuitiWage'Eatfes of the "Fishery Codes, with the Es-
timated Pesiilting Increase in Ann\ial Wage Volume 90
XXX -^ Effect Of the 'Control of the Catch of the Atlantic
Purse Seine Mackerel Fleet , 1934 11.5
XXXI -* "Quant itjr, Value and Average Price of Mackerel Landed at
Boston and Gloucester, 1913-1934, in Relation to
Wholesale Meat Prices 117
Chart I - Average Daily Hours Worked per Employee in Selected
Salmon Canneries in Alaska, July and A'ugust, 1933 58
9581 -vi-
-1-
THS ITISHEHY IMDUSTEY AIID lEZ TISIISRY CODES
SLlfllAIlY
SCOPE OP TEE STUDY AND .•pESGRIFTIO'N 0? TUn IlDUS'niY
The Pishery Industry as defined for code purposes covered not only
the fishing industry proper, or the fisheries in the ordinary sense, hut
a-lso the v;holesaling trades a.nd the canning and reduction industries.
The original plan T7as that this Indiistry should he covered hy a
single naster' code, with supplementary codes for the subdivisions. Certa,in
canning industries, however, petitioned out of its jurisdiction. The
present study has dealt \7ith the Pishery Incxistry in the sense in nhich it
".-as origins^lly intended that the master code should supply.
The enterprises which handle the wholesale distrioution of fresh
ano- frozen fishery products are quite distinct from the wholesale grocery
trades. They also do a considerahle ve.riet;" of simple processing, \fhich
T-as designated for code purposes "preparing".
TTliolesalers and processors own fishing cre.ft, and gear on a scale
large enoiTgh to account for not less thc-n 35 OJ-" ^0 per cent of the quantity
caught.
That the wholesale distribution of fresh fish and shellfish is so
specialised is , explained primarily hy the e::trenae perishability of the rav;
product. The cost of distribution mounts ra,picly with the radius, ajid in
the interior of the country this has nM.ch affected the development of the
consumer demand.
Canned and other nonperishable processed fishei^/ products are naanly
sold b;' the processors to the gener8.1 v/holesale grocery trade. Such oper?.-
tions vere specifically excluded from the jurisdiction of the fisher^/ codes.
All retail trade was also excluded fro:.: the jurisdiction of these
codes, though an association representing the seafood dealers of greater
iTe',7 York. petitioned for inclusion.
Arproxinate figares^ - the only ones availa^ble - indicate that not
less than two-thirds of all fishery products, and probably more, move at
least once in interstate trade.
Tre,de associations in the Pisher;'- Indu.str" have been numerous, but
Eiostlj' local and neither efficient nor infliiential. Most of the fev.' na-
tional associations had shown little vita,lity. Pew subo.i visions except the
Canned Salmon and the lorth Atlantic Oyster Industries have been well
organized. A large proportion of the r.ssociations that presented fishery
codes were created for the purpose. Host of these are nov/ dormant if not
disbanded. The encouragement of the habit of trade organization SJid co-
operative activity was an important potential advantage of the code system
to the Pishery Industry, which as things xieiit was not realized.
S5S1
~2-
Tlie Industry has also had fe-.7 influentir.l la-tor organizaticns, the
e:cceptions "being mainly confined to the crzining industries. Most fisher-
men's organizations resemble trade associr.tions more than labor unions.
They tend to represent the interests of prinary producers against dis-
tributors rather than those of workers crrlnst oxinevs.
Tirs piio::ucgioiT of the industhy . • . . -
In 192s the gross sales of the Industry, including primary production,
wholesa.le distribution and processing, uere probably not much less than
$550,000,000. In 1933 the corresponding fi-ure rras about $350,000, 000, and
ii ICGA -^e-j-hrps $45':' , 000 , OOC .
The primary production of the fisheries rxiounted in I929 to about
three and a half billion pounds, valued p.t 122 million dollars. Pron ths,t
year to 1333 "tl^s quantity fell off about I9 per cent, and the value about
51 per cent.
The catch of edible fishery products is :.ia,de up of about I50 species.
Tnelve of these, ho^jever, account for e.bout GO per cent of the tota,l.
These 12, in order of their importance, are sa-lnon, pilchard or California
sardine, haddock, herring, oysters, shrimp, cod, mackerel, flounders, tuna,
hs,libut and crabs. . ■
The j'ishery Industry is not no-v a contributor of the first importance
to the ereport trade of the United States. Iiiportations, however, are so
distributed as to constitute serious comipetition for certain branches of
the Industry. The fresh fish and shellfish come chiefly from Canada, and
the cejined goods and fish meal from Japan. Prozen produ^cts are received
from both countries.
The per capita cons^omption of fishery products in the United States
is small in comparison with that of most other im.portant countries, and is
less no',7 than it was 5O years ago. The chpjige has been due to the increase
in the proportion of the population T/hich lives in the interior of the
continent, and which has lost the habit of including fishery products in its
diet.
This situation affects the Industrj^ adversely with respect to compe-
tition with other protein foods. So f?-r as this disadvantage can be over-
come, the end will have to be sought pp.rtly by publicity and partly by
improvements in the methods of distribu.tion.
Conservation problems of importance have arisen in the case of
fisheries in enclosed or semi-enclosed waters, of sessile species like
oysters and clams, and of those the propagation of which is dependent on
annual migrations into rivers to spavm. "ith respect to most free— swimming
pelagic species, however, there seems a,t present to be no conclusive evi-
dence of eneroacliment on the supply.
THE PRICES. OF JISHERY PHOSUCTS
The average price of fishery products to the primary producers fell
from 1929 to 1933 by approximately 35 per cent; but in the case of seven of
95S1
-3-
the 12 me.joT. species the decline exceeded ^-l-O per cent. It '.7as this fall
in the ujiit. price that chiefly accounted for the shrinkage in the dollar
■volume. Little information is availahle v/ith regard to the selling
prices of wholesalers and processors. Ovfing to factors of inelasticity
in distrihuting costs \7holesalers' prices did not decline to the sane ex-
tent as those received by fishermen; "out, the deflation v/as nevertheless *
severe.
The effect of the price deflation frov.i 1S29 to 1933 on the finan-
cial position of the numerous enterprises, mostly small, which are engag-
ed in the Fishery Industry was little short of ruinous. It was this
situation that supplied the first and the strongest incentive to present
fishery codes. The proponents' interest, consequently, centered on
direct and (Sa-astic measures to maintain or to control prices. The v/riting
of these codes was delayed, however, until the Adininistration had hecome
less willing to approve such provisions. The resulting controversies
affected adversely the Industry's attitude toward the code system.
It has usually heen assumed that some relationship exists "between
the. prices of fishery products sjid those of neat or livestock. A prelin-
*inary study of the Atlantic mackerel ce.tch leaves little doubt that the
latter the factor chiefly accounting for the price received by the fisher-
riein, next to the quantity landed. Other influences seem to be secondary.
A serious doubt therefore arises as to hov; far it is possible to control
the prices of fishery products, either directly or by manipulating the
quant it3- of the catch alone.
The tie-up between the price of fish and the cyclical movement in
meat prices i..s, disadvantageous to the Industry under consideration. Short
of a program which v/ould iron .out those novenents, hov/ever, it is doubtful
whether the prices received by fishermen can be improved, unless the
rela-tive preferences of the American consiiner can be modified.
r
There is a wide spread between the prices-received by the primary''
producers of fishery products and those paid bjr the consumer. It is un-
likely that this is due to monopolistic or profiteering tactics.
As a rule, indeed, the largest distributors do not seem to have been
in a position, before the establishment of the K.R.A., to monopolize busi-
ness or to injure their smaller competitors "hj improper means. In a few
insta.nces, however, groups of large wholesa^lers took advantage of their
position' as proponents of codes to offer provisions apparently designed to
protect themselves from' the competition of small enterprises.
JSTABLISmiEMTS AMD EKTEBPEISES
Du-ring the past 25 years the number of fishing vessels of five net
tons capiacity and over has greatly incree.sed on the Pacific coast and on
the Grea.t Lal:es; but this has only partly offset a decrease on the
Atla.ncic and Gulf coasts. A large majority/ of all fishing vessels are
owned singly by individuals or partnerships. The number of fishing boats
of less than five net tons capacity has. recently been in the neighborhood
of 70 J 000, These small craft account for a,bout 57 P^r cent of the
production.
Q
5S1
■■-•4-
As the foregoing statements suggest, the enterprises operating 80
to 90 per cent of all fishing craft are very small. ' In the wholsaling
and processing industries there have recently "been 2,900 to 3 jOOO' es-
tablishments, of which 500 to 600 are engaged in canning and preserving,
and the remainder in preparing aiid wholesaling. The nur.i"ber of estal)-
lishmentS' is nearly the same as the number of enterprises. These con-
cerns also run relatively small.
PERSOrijEL'MI) VOLUIvlH] OF avIPL0YI',IE]UT
The total number of persons engaged in the fisheries proper has re-
cently been from 115,000 to 1258000, From 1929 to 193" tte re was a de-
cline of only . seven per cento Tiie problem of outright unemployment was
consequently ' of rainor importance.
0nly39:per cent of the personnel of the fisheries proper are em-
ployees in any sense, and 51 per cent are entrepreneurs - mostly on a
very snail scale.
■ The. personnel of the "orimary oroducing industry is characterized
by a high average age, a, low turnover j' and conservative habits. During
the depression there has been little tendency for fisherman to migrate
• to obtain additional or' substitute employment. G!hey work in small
groups. Tlie average vessel crew is only seven or eight, and of the per-
sonnel of the boat fisheries more than half operate one-man craft.
Hie gross output per man of the fisheries proper puts a low mo,:d-
mum limit on' the earnings of the mass of the personnel. Over the past
25 or 30 years, hovrever, a decrease of 15 or 17 per cent on the person-
nel has accompanied an, increase of 40 or 45 per cent in both the quan-
tity and the value of the catch, Segular fishermen are actively engaged
in fishing for only eight or ten months of the year. Circumstances,
however > prevent them, as a class, from supplementing their earnings to
any considerable extent by engaging in other employments.
In 1931 there were about 72,000 persons employed in the processing
and wholesaling industries, of whom about 8,600 vere employed in canning
and preserving, and the remainder in the preparing and wholesaling trades.
The 1929 and 1933 figures are incomplete; but the decline from the former
to the latter jeax is' believed to have been moderate. The average annual
employment in the processing and T/holess-ling indiistries is about half
that at the seasonal plateau. These workers, as a class are employed
only about half the year, .
The total nianber of persons engaged in the Fishery Industry in 1929
was probably betv/een 200,000, and 210,000, while in 1933 it was about
188,500, The decline due to the depression, therefore, was quite moder-
ate,
HOURS OF LA30H
The restriction of the working hours of fishermen with a view to
spreading emploj^ent v/as never regarded as practicable. Hours, of labor
in the wholesaling and processing industries did not escape restriction;
but their irregularity is such that ' the problem was difficult and the
results v/ere not very satisfactory. Average working hours for plant
9581
-5-
eraployees in most of these industries in 1933 ran from 45 to 55 'oer week,
with the' mean rcther under 50., Only in the southeastern states did
these hours reach 60 per week, Tkie hoitrs of oyster shuckers, owing to
the contraction of the volume of "business, averaged fnder 25 per week.
Everywhere, in addition to the seasonal concentration, there were heavy
short-time fluctuations'; hut the available evidence does not suggest
that the proportion of very long working weeks and days was really large,
EifflNIlTG-S 0? THE FERSOKrJEL
Three- quarters of the 40 per cent of the personnel of the primary
producing industry who may he classified as employees work on shares, A
small proportion are paid on a piece basis and only 20 or 25 per cent
work on fi::ed wages. Hiere appears to be no general tendency for wages
to supplant the share system.
In most cases the crew share is the residue that remains after oper-
ating ejcpenses and the share assigned to the vessel or boat have been
deducted from the value of the ca-tch. All overhead costs are charged
•against the vessel or boat share.
The agreements or "lays" that govern the distribution of shares have
changed but little during the pa.st generation, or even since the eight-
eenth century, A large majority have never been reduced to writing. As
a result they constitr.te perhaps the most informal and at the same time
the most stable class of economic relationships in the country.
The co'cjrts ha.ve long regarded fishermen who work on shares as em-
.ployees in the sajae sense as factory wage earners. Except in the case of
large corporation-owned vessels, however, this legal doctrine i.s unreal-
istic. The a,vailable evidence in.dica,tes strongly that the real position
of share fishermen is intermediate between that of small entrepreneurs
or stocldiolders and of ordinary employees.
Precise data for the earnings of fishermen are a.t present confined
to the vessel fisheries. In 1933 the weighted average for share vessel
crews was $649, and for wage vessel crews $510, For share vessels in_
individ-oal a^reas the average varied from $847 in California to $399 in
the South. Ihe avera^ge net income of boa.t and share fishermen in 1953
can hardly have exceeded $300, About a third of these latter, however,
derived at least half their money income from occupations other than
fishing.
Estimates of the earnings of share fisherm_en in 1329 and 1934 indi-
cate that the average per man declined from the former year to 1933 by
57 per cent, and rose in 1934 by 52 per cent; but that it was then still
abotit 35 per cent below 1929, Eixed wages declined much less from 1929
to 1933 than -did earnings from shares, and rose much less in 1934,
Erom 1929 to 1933 the average earnings of share fishermen fell more
sharply than the corresponding value of the catch, and from 1933. to 1934
they rose more sharply, Hiis was largely an indirect result of the
relation of the concurrent changes in the prices of fishery products and
of those of the commodities tha.t chiefljr accoimt for the operating ex-
pense of fishing craft. It seems abnormal and somewhat demoralizing how-
ever that the earnings of a class vdiose incomes are so small should vary
9581
more e::treinely than the gross sales volume of the enter^orise for which
they v/orko
Investigations in connection with the codes "bro"Utght out ' charges of
abuses in the administration of share' acreements. The matter needs fur-
ther investigation and probahly some remedial action.
The total volume of comioensation in the primary producing industry
is at present unlcnown* In the vessel fisheries it was ahout 31 mllion- .:•■.■•
dollars in 1929, ahout nine and a half million in 1933, and not quite 13
million in 1934. The 1953 volume represented ahout 38 per Cent -of the
value of the vessel catch of that year, Tliis ratio appears to:have-
changed. ver3'" little for many years* ":
Except in the ca.se of a few special classes of worker the availahle
informa.tion indicates that the wholesaling and. processing industries,
just before the institution of the ILHoAo, were paying tolerable wages,
with a.verages running from $18 to $26 per week. The total wage volume
of these industries was about 45 million dollars in 1929, ajid 30 million
in 1933.
The grand total volume of vrages aiid shares, in 1933, of all persons
in the Fishery Industry f/ho may in some sense be called employees may be
estima.ted provisionally at $47,500,000.
THE FISHEaY CODE STaUCTUBE ASD THE WRITIE& GIT THE CODES ■
The writing of the fishery codes '-ms originally subject to .the Agr-ic-jl.
tural Adjustment Administration. When they were transferred back to the
K.H.A. in Januarjr, 1934, however, none had been ap'oroved.
In the N.S.A. the plan was to concentrate first of all on a master
code for the whole Industry. This was approved on February 26, 1934.
Its provisions Mere deliberately made rather general, in the belief that
the special problems of individioal subindustries would have to be dealt
with in the supplementary codes.
The master Code provided for a Hational Code Authority to be elected
by the National Fisheries Association, and for executive Committees in
the various subdivisions. It also provided for a uniform assessment of
one-tenth of one per cent of the previous year's sales of each member.'
These were to be collected exclusively by the Executive Committees, who
were to turn over 25 per cent for the use of the Code Authority.
The general idea of bringing the whole Industrjr under a master Code
as a first step had decided merits; but the details of the actual plan
involved serious errors of judgment. Tlae National Fisheries Association
was not sufficiently representative to be entrusted with the election of
the Hational Code Authority. The Administrative functions of the latter
were not well distinguished from those of the Executive Committees, and
there was widespread objection to the assignment to the former of 25 per
cent of the assessments.
9581
-7-
It now seems clear that the National Code structure should have heen,
to begin with, a much raoro modest one, and that it should have he en built
from the bottom up ojid not from the top do\?ii.
Hearings on all the supplementary codes vvhich it was proposed to es-^
tablish for the wholesaling and processing industries had been held vrithin
a few raonths of the approval of the National Code, By June, 1934, five
of the latter had been aoproved; but from that time delays began to devel-
op. Of the seven regional codes -oroposed for the general preparing and
wholesaling trades three were still unapproved at the time of the Schechter
decision. Ihe Supplementary Code for the Atlantic Mackeral Fishery was
the only one approved for the primary producing industry, though hearings
were held on five others.
These delays were the resiJ.t, primarily, of two things - the large
size and artificial character. of the areas to which the Administration in-
sisted that these codes should apply, and the promulgation in June, 1934,
of Office Hemorand-Lun IJoc 228. Little if any of this./lack of progress vras
the i-esu-lt of conditions in the Deputy Administrator's office. In the
case of the proposed codes fo,r the priiaarj'' producing industi'yi bowever,
there were also delays due to controversies regarding conservation pro-
visions insisted on by the KoR.A., and to the f2.ct that in _ some cases the
proponents' interest centered on the restriction of, competitive imports.
The statement that the promulgation of Office Memorandum lOo 228 was
a cause of delay in the writing of the supplementarj;- codes is not meant
to imply any question as to the advisability of the policy involved. The
fact tha.t the Memorandum had a discouraging effect on the proponents of
these codes, however, was too latent for dispute.
It novr seems certain that a. code system for the primary producing in-
dustry could, not have been set up with a strict adherence to the standard
procedure of the N.R.A. 7ith a modified procedure, however, an orgsxiza-
tion could probably ha,ve been established v/hich would in time have had
very beneficial results,
THE ADMIITI STRATI OH OF THE COIES
The bodies set up to administer the fisherjr codes "undertook the work
under serious handicaps. Previous organization had been lacking, and there
was a consequent scarcity of trained staff. It proved exceedingly diffi-
cult to collect assessments sufficient to provide even for minimum necessi-
ties. Under the special conditions of the Industry it was hard to estab-
lish a ha,bit of compliance with the codes. Additional difficulty ajrose
from intergroup jealousies in some of the artificially large code areas.
Members of this Industry were unaccustomed to paying dues for common
purposes, eaid a large proportion of them Tjere in very low financial water.
The Administration's requirements v/ith respect to code finance v/ere be-
coming more strict, and in the absence of reliable data delay was caused
by the submission of budgets based on overestimates of the funds likely
to be available. The National Code Authority was especially affected by
the fact that it was to receive its income indirectly. It proposed at
the beginning, moreover,, a far too grandiose spending program* When its
original estimates had to be heavily cut, its prestige stiff ered according-
ly.
9581
-3-
Of 13 fishery code bodies for which budgets '.".'ere a"0"oroved the esti-
mated individ^ial income of six was less than 10 thousand dollars, and
that of 10 was less than 20 thousand. Even so, only tv/o instances are
IcnoTOi in which most of the estiraa.ted receipts v/ere actually collected.
It is doubtful whether in sJiy other case the collections reached 25 per
cent of the estimate.
The problem of obtaining compliance vras conditioned by the fact that
these codes affected large numbers of small enterprises, which had not
been trained to the habit of working cooperatively. A majority of the
Executive Committees were not established until the first interest in the
code system had begun to subside. These bodies^ moreover, v;ere absorbed
in the primary'' work of getting orgaiiized, of preparing budgets, and of col-
lecting bare minimums of funds. Apart from all this, however, their ef-
forts to obtain compliance v?ere affected by their conviction that the
responsibility for the enforcement of the code.s, as for any sort of police
activity, belonged to the G-overnnent alone. Actually, therefore, their
activities for the purpose a.3iiounted to little.
Ihere were a few exceptions to this general lack of effective adminis-
tration, including the Canned Salmon Code Authority,'', the Committees admin-
istering both the California and the Hew England Sardine Codes, and the
temporary Committee administering the national Code in the northern Ca-li-—
fornia area.. Information is lacking, however, for a detailed report on
the work of these bodies.
This situation with resoect to the axTiainistration of the fishery codes,
however, had com^^ensating features. There vrere few applications for stays
and almost no.ne for exeK.ptions; and the number of cases of alleged high-
handed or coercive action on the rart of the Executive Committees was
negligible.
Conditions did not favor the collection of statistics by the fishery
code bodies while the codes were in existence, and very little in that
direction was done*
PHOVISIOMS BELATIKG TO HOURS OE LABOR
In the preparing and v;holesaling trades the fact that really long
hours' had been sporadic only led to a. belief that the additional employ-
ment created by restricting them viould be small and irregular, and that it
would represent a trifling- contribution only to the solution of the main
problem. 'The Eiaxiraum hours finally agreed upon varied little from 45 per
week.
In the canning industries conditions varied. The hours of the Nation-
al Fishery Code were ultimately reapplied to the California Sardine In-
dustry, while in the case of the Canned Salmon Industry it was felt that
more harm than good would be done by an attempt to restrict hours for the
purpose of spreading emplojonent.
There are' practically n.o detailed figures to show the actual effect
on eraployment of the restriction of hours in the Fishery , Industry, About
68 per cent of the personnel, however, \7ere in branches in which conditions
9581
-9-
m'-.de reritriction iuiracticable. In ttie case of the renn.inder the aggre-
gate s'oread cr.m ccarcely have ajioionted to rore than eight or nine per cent
of the pre-code voliome, Hiis rather -unsatisfactory resiilt, hovrever, must
Tae regarded in the raoAn as an inevitahle consequence of the very special
conditions of the Industry,
Hie compliance problems 'which arose from these ma;-inun hour orovisions
v/e.re not very serious. The restriction they \7ere probahly not observed
rigidly, "but there is no positive evidence of deliberate or widespread
noncompliance.
MIMfclUlA 7fA&E PEOYISIOMS
Ihe National Fishery Code set the precedent of excepting fishermen
working or shares from the benefit of a minimum \7age rate. There v/as
merit in the arguments on v/hich this policy was based; but it v/as a defect
of the Code that it did not establish the principle tha.t this large group
was entitled to some equivalent guarantee o
Hie minimum wage rates of the National Code did a-'ply to the 20 per
cent of all fishermen v/ho work on a wage basis; but the rates- were not
high enough to benefit most of those affected very grea„tly.
Hie minin-um wage rates of the National Code also applied to the pre-*
Tearing and T,h.olesaling trades in the three regions for v/hich supplementary
codes were never aporovedc
Except in the case of piece workers in the Eresh Oyster an.d Blue
Crab Indtistries minim\i!Ti rates at least up to the general code standard,
and in' nost cases' higher, vrere agreed upon with little controversy for
the prepa^ring and '..holesaling trades for which supplementary codes v/ere
written.
The rates foi: o^'-ster shuckers in the North Atlantic area were reason-
able, though the];- did not benefit ma<,ny T/orJ^ers. In the Chesapeake area
the minim-urn rate left earnings very low, and even so it was not generally
lived up to. The fairly satisfactory minimum rate of the Blue Crab Code
was never enforced in Virginia.. Hie best available information indicates
that the smaller packers both of oysters and crabs in this area were ill~
sit-ua-ted financially to pay the Code rates. At the sa.rae time earnings
were scandaJousl;'- lov;. The problem was difficult and what the solution
sho-uld have been is not clea.r even now.
The minimum rate ultimately applied to the California Sardine Indus-
try raised the wages of five-sixths of the workers abo-at 10 per cent.
In the Canned Salmon Industry about 40 per cent of, the shore workers had
been "Orientals", employed ''oj Chinese and Japanese labor contractors, v/ho
had paid them very Iot; wa.ges. The Cojined Salmon Code abolished this systemi
Since the contractors ha.d in -Dractice been malcing excessive profits the
abolition is believed to ha.ve been beneficial .to the canning companies,
and may be expected to be maintained. Hie Code minim.-uun rates raised, the
earnings of the Oriental employees '^o:/ about a third.
9581
-10-
Hie 'bodies adr.:inistering the fisher^'- codes '.vere not in a position
to do much to insure compliance v/ith the \-;are provisionso In the case of
the piece workers in the Fresh Oyster and Blue Crab Industries in the
Chesapeake area the fact of ;7idespread noncompliance v/as notorious o
Othervase, however} the situation ap^iears to have heen fairly satisfactory.
In increases in wage volume v/hich were expected to result from the
the minimum wage provisions of the fishery codes ran from 12 or 13 to 35
or 40 per cent, and averaged ahout 20 per cent. No reason is knov/n for
supposing that these increases were not epproximately realized.
TRADE, FEACTICE PROVISIONS
Tlie interest of most "branches of the Industry;- centered on trade
practice provisions for the maintenance or control, direct jor indirect,
of the prices of fishery products.
The National Fishery Code contained a general prohibition of des-
tructive price cutting. This provision was so thoroughly safeguarded
that it could scarcely have done any harm. Tlie procedure provided for,
however, was cuiabersume , and except for its noral effect the prohibition
could, hardly have accomplished any useful -ourpcse.
Eleven codes contained provisions for the filing of open prices, six
of them in the form stipulated in Office Memorandum No. 228. The sS'stem
was apparently fa-irly workable in the case of the canning industries, but
probably not in that of the preparing and wholesaling trades. It is be-
lieved that after the initial filing the members of the latter genereily
failed to comply with the open price requirements.
Five codes approved before the promulgation of Office Memorandum
No. 228 contained provisions prohibiting sales below members' individual
costs. The latter were to be determined "pursuant to the principles" of
cost finding systems to be s.pproved by the Administration. One such sys-
tem was ajpproved temporarily for the California Sardine Industry. The
Executive Committee of tlie latter regarded the provision as 'highly bene-
ficial, but nothing is known in detail of the way it worked.
Except in the case of the Atlantic Mackerel Fishery not even an rttant
TEi.Ei.rceto put into effect any of several provisions providing for the es-
tablishment of emergency minimum prices. It is believed, however, that
the New England Sardine Industry might have shown grounds for the approv-
al of such a tempcirary price floor, if the codes had been continued in
effect in the suminer of 1935.
The practice of shipping on consignment to the large \7holesale
centers is very common on the part of fishermen and of small primary
dealers located at outlying ports. . In 1932 and 1933 a large proportion
of such shippers became convinced that this practice i7as accentuating
the current price deflation. Seven of the codes, consequently, included
provisions vrhich, in varj'^ing form, _ prohibited or restricted consignment
selling.
There is no question that wholesalers in several lojrge centers had
developed -oractices in handling consignment shipments v/hich v/ere peculiar
9581
-11-
and not strictly le^al, Tliere is much, truth, hov/ever, in the contention
of these concerns th8,t no other coiu'se v;as feasihle., . It is also proTDalDle
that neither the practice of consignment selling in itself nor the deal-
ers* methods really made rauch difference in the prices paid. The whole-
salers' practices, however, v/ere liahle to ahuse, and remedial action
would he desirable, •*
Si:: fishery codes contained provisions limiting the periods for which
credit might he given hy Industry raemhers. Seven prohibited price quota-
tions and settlements except on an f.o.h. or delivered "basis. Tv7o ap-
proved codes limited the alloT/ances tha.t might he made on claims from
customers, s,nd others which were not approved proposed to do the same.
Little or nothing specific is at present 1-niown of the effect of these
three grou]ps of provisions'; hut it is unlikely that they vfere generally
complied \7ith.
Almost .all the wholesaling and processing codes contained provisions
prohibiting the diversion of brokers' commissions to customers. The
Canned Salmon Industry attached special importance to this, and the Code
Aaithority made conscientious efforts to enforce it. The conditions were
so difficult, however, that the provision vras finally stayed at the
Industry' s request.
Since only one supplementary code was approved for a fishery proper,
few trade practice provisions were designed for the advantage of the
primary producer. A provision to protect fishermen against nonpayment
or dela^y in payment by dealers, however, was Tirritten into all the vfhole-
saling and processing codes. It wouJLd not appear that the abuses vfhich
caused this to be done, were at all widespread; but there is reason to
thinlv that the provision was desirable on genera^l principles.
The Atlantic' Mackerel Fishing Code included a provision designed
to prevent a,buses in connection with the administration of lays or share
agreements. It was proposed to v.'rite the same provision into other sup>*
plenentary codes for the primejy producing industry. ■
Hie National Fishery Code made it a duty of the E::ecutive Committees
to inform the Administration of the importation of competitive foreign
products into the United States in subs.tantial quantities or in increas-
ing ratios to domestic production. It was intended to include similar
provisions, with specific reference to Section Z {^) of Table I of the
Hecovery Act, in the supplementary codes for some other primary produc**
ing industries. The only complaint Y/hich was follo\7ed through under the
authority of that Section, however, vfas of minor importance and was
dismissed. T'./o other petitions were docketed for relief, but were both
withdrawn.
The conservation provisions included in fishery codes, unfortunately,
did harm rather than good. The insistence of the 5f.Il. A. on including
conservation provisions in the proposed G-reat Lakes Pishing Code played
a considerable part in discouraging its proponents.
9581
-12-
Tlie Constuncr's Advisers assigned to the fisher2" codes Iwere success-
ful in having provisions for the esta'blishi.ient of grades -or standards in-
cluded in all of then. In the case of the canning industries these pro-r
visions are helieved to have been workable , thou,gh not mu9h is kno\7n \7ith
regard to their effect. In the case of the preparing and wholesaling
codes, however, the clauses relating to gra,des and standards vrere assented
to reluctantly, and little was done to carry them oiit.
THE COIITHOL OF THB ATLANTIC UACEERSiL CATCH
The last chapter of the report deals in deta.il with the control of
production provision of the Atlazitic Mackerel Fishing Code, ajid its hack-
gro'und and effects.
The heavy increase in the catch of this fishery from 1925 was inevi** -
tatly accompanied "by a drop in the price to the producers; hut the decline
was probably accentuated by the relatively large number of vessels
fishing. The catch of 1932 was the largest in 50 years, and brought an
average price 55 per cent belov; that paid for appro :;imately the saine
quantity in 1929. In the face of this decline the operating expense of
the mackerel fleet fell off from 1929 to 1932 by only about 22 per cent,
while its overhead e::pense remained practically unchanged. In 1932 the
gross profit accruing to a group of typical vessels amounted to only 37
per cent of the overhead cost and depreciation. The crews of these ves-
sels earned an 8,verage of only $6e40 per week per man for the mackerel
season of about 30 weeks« ■
It was this situation that led the mackerel fishery to propose at an
early stage a code containing a provision to permit the regulation of the
catch. The Code was not a^pproved until May 3, 1934; but in the meantime,
during the 1933 aoason, severa.l consecutive voluntary agreements for the
control of the production had been ejgjerimented vfith. None of these he.d
lasted any considerable tine, but they had reduced the catch substantially,
V7ith a corresponding 'increase in the unit price.
The control of production provision wa.s -out into effect early in
June, 1934, 'The a.ggregate weekly caiota x;;\s at firnt set at 700,000,000.pounds
Late in June, however, it was increased to 1,100,000 and early in August
to 2,200,000 pounds. This latter dra.stic increase, which was made be-
cause of an ercoected deficiency in the foreign-- salt mackerel available
for importa.tion, raised the quota so near to the current supply tha.t for
practical purposes there ceased to be any restriction of the production
from that tine on.
Ear^-y in August the Industry applied for the a;pproval of aji emergency
minimum cost which, if enforced, would have raised the average price re-
ceived diiring August and September from 1,31 to a^bout 1.75 cents per
potmd. The Executive Gonunittee' s interpretation of the term "emergency"
however, vfas at variance with the Administration's understanding, and'the
application was disallowed.
This action \ics received by the Industry with resentment. For the
reasons indicated above, hov/ever , it is unlikely that it affected mater-
ially the results of the control.
95cl.
-^13-
For the tv/o months dioring which the control of the mackerel catch
had any actiial effect, of.cpii-rse, it: raised., the tuiit price. Owing,
however, to the lov? level of meat prices at the time the increase ws.s
not sitfficient to compensate for the restriction of the .quantity. This
attempt of the mackerel fishery to solve its prohlems of iinrem-unerativei,
prices azid of suhnormal earnings hj/ limiting its production was therefore,
prohahly, oji irapra.cticahle one. Ihe attempt, however, v/as made in good
faith, Tinder strong provocation, and does not seem in practice to have
caused serious injury to the consuiner.
9581
-14-
THE FISHaRY industry MP THE FISHZiRY
'■ ■ CODES
CHAPTER I
' SCOPE ,GP THE STUDY AM) DESCRIPTION OP THE INDUSTRY
DEFINITION OP THE INDUSTRY
The N.R.A. fishery codes \7ith which this study is concerned covered
a field consideralDly more extensive than that of the Pishing Industry or
the fisheries in the ordinary sense. The Industry as thus defined falls
into three suhdivisions:
(1) The fishing Industry proper
(2) The preparing and wholesaling trades
(?.) General
(h) Specialized
(3) The specialized, canning and reduction industries
The fishery codes did not covery any part of the retail trade in
fishery prodiicts,
TIiE CODS STPUCTURE
The original plan was that the whole Industry as thus defined,
shou].d he covered "by a single master code, with sup'oleraentary codes for
the various suhdi visions. By the time the master code had heen written,
however, opposition to inclusion within its jurisdiction had developed
on the part of some "branches, es;Decially certain canning industries.
There ws,s consequently inserted a -orovision (Article IX, Section 4) which
permitted such groups to petition out of the Code Industry, This pro-
cedure v/as taken advantage of "by the Can.ned Salmon Industry, which ul-
timately received an independent code, and hy the canned tima, shrimp,
oyster and clam products industries, which preferred to be placed ujider
the Canning Code.
SCOPE OP THE REPORT
The sttidy the results of v/hich are s^oiamarized in the present report,
has dealt with the Fishery Industry in the h-c-oad sense, to which it was
originallj'" intended that the master code should aroply. That is, it in-
cludes the Canned Salmon Industry, which ultimately had an independent
code. It refers only incidentall-v, however, to the c^?,nning industries
which were placed under the Canning Code,
ORGANIZATION OP THE ^.IKOLESALIHG MD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES
The fiuictions and economic relations of the first of the three main
subdivisions of the Fishery Industry - the fishing industr-y proper - are
too ODvious to demand description. In the case of the wholesaling and
9581
-15-
procecisin/;;; divisions, horever, these functions and interrelations are
somev/liat corqDlex, and require further explanation.
The v.fholesale distribution of fishery products cestined for con-
sumption in a fresh or frozen state are liandled hy specialized enterprise^
which are qtiite distinct from the wholesale grocery trade, and which,
with ninor exceptions, are not concerned ivith anything except fishery
products. These wholesaling trades, moreover, comhine with their distri-
butive function a considerable variety of processing.
As a ma.tter of convenience this minor processing was designated for
code purposes "preparing". The term covers such operations as the fill-
eting cjid packaging and the drying and salting of fish, the shucking of
oysters a,nd clams and the heading and peeling of shrimp.
The pirej^aring and vrholesaling of all finny fish and of some shell-
fish and miscellaneous products are carried on by unspecialized trades,
between which the only practicable distinction is a geogranhical one,
A highly varying but substantial part of the business of each of these
is within its own area, though by no means exclusively within its own
state. There is, however, a considerable overlap in the operations of
these regional trades, which was the cause of complications from the
standpoint of code writing and administration.
In the case of a few snoecies, particularly^ oysters, crabs and lob-
sters, the 2">i'ocesses of production and preparation are so distinct that
the trades concerned with their primary distribution may be regarded as
constituting a specialized group, separate from the general Drepa.ring
and wholesaling trades just described.
Practically all fish and shellfish destined to be canned, as dis-
tinguished from other methods of preservation, are bought by the proces-
sors direct from fishermen, and do not pa.ss through the hands of the
wholesaling trades. These canning industries, therefore, constitute a
distinct division of the Code Industry.
PAHTICIPATIOl'- QP MQLESALERS AlID PROCESSOaS IS THE F-:i:lAP:Y PRODUCTIOl'T
Hot only do the preparing and wholesaling trf^des and the canning
subindiistries constitute the sole large scale customers of the industry
proper, bu.t there is in many cases a closer connection, arising from the
ownership of fishing craft or gear by distributors or ijrocessors. This
is true of a substantial proportion of the Kew England groundfish (*)
fleet, of the vessels in the cultivated Oyster and the Memhaden Indus-
tries, of the red snapijer fleets operating out of Pensacola and Galves-
ton, of ina-ny^ smaller fishing cre^ft in the South, particularly in Elorida,
of the tre.wling fleet operating out of San Prancisco, a,nd of the craft
engaged in supplying the salmon canneries of the Pacific l^orthwest and
Alaska,
(*) "G-roimdf ish" is the collective term for the principal commercial
flatfishes - cod, liaddock, liake, cusk, pollock and to some extent halibut
and flounders,
9581
-16-
Tlie proportion of the priiaary production of fish .and shellfish ta]-en
"Dy craft tlms ov/ned ty distributors or processors 'is not known vdthaccur^
acy; otit it can hardly amount to less thpji 55 or 40 per cent of the total
quantity. The proportion of fishing; craft by niim'oer which are o-'7ned in
a corresponding manner is much lovrer - prohahly ahout 20 per cent in the
case of vessels of five net tons capacity and over, and still less in
the case of "boats of less tiia.n five tons capacity,
SPECIALIZED SLIBIKDUSTRIES
In addition to the three main suhdivisions of the Fis-hery Industry,
as defined for the purposes of the present study, a fev? .specialized cases
of secondary importance should he mentioned. Two industries in the South-
eastern states are engaged in catching, preparing and distrihuting in-
edible jDroducts' - sponges and the fish meal or scrap and the oil manu-
factured from the small herring-like species lcnoT,TO. as menhaden. The meal
and scrap have heen raa,inly used as fertilizer, hut some now goes into
poultry feedc A secondary processing industry is engaged in crushing
oyster shells, also for use as poultry feed,
A highly specialized and minor branch of the primary producing in-
dustry is that engaged in the artificial propagation of small fresh water
fish, particularly trout. This industry produces primarily eggs and
small fr" for stocking gaihe preserves; but of recent years its output
of mature fish for immediate food purposes has become relatively im-
portant, , '
DETAILED CLASSIPICATIOW OE TIIE SUIilHSUSTRIES AI\tD THE CODES
On the basis of the foregoing de.scription the following detailed
classif ics-tion of the fishery subindustries and of their code status may
be made:
Divisions AiTD SLIBIKDUSIRLSS
CODE STATUS
Fisheries Proper
Regular Pood Fisheries (*)
Unless Otherv/ise Stated,
National Code Only
Atlantic Mackerel
Oyster
Blue -Crab
Great Lakes
Alaska Herring
Pacific Halibut
Pacific Cra.b
Florida
Lobster
Supplementary Code Approved
i; " I' (Fresh Oyster)
ft n I!
Supplementary Code Heard but not Approved
F? II II II II IT
XL II It 11 It it
It n It n (I n'
U It II II U II
H II II H II It
(*) Onljr the fisheries for which supplementary codes reached public
hearing a,re listed under this head. The total number is much larger.
9581
-17-
InecLi''ole Products fisheries
lienhaden ' .National Code Only
Sponge
t! ir H
Oyster Cultivating SuTd-
industry . Supplementary Code Approved (Fresh Oyster)
Fisli Propagating SulDindustries
TroLit Panning ' ■ Supplementary Code Approved
Preparing and Fholesaling Trades. .
General, rath G-eographical Su"bdivisions
Nev.' England Supplementary Code Aroproved
Middle Atlantic
Miduest
II n II
II . n ■ II
Soutiiea,st . Supiileme'ntary 'Code Heard "but not Ap-nroved
Gulf South • ' » ;•■"' " " " « "
North-.Test s.nd Alaska Sup-olementaty Code Approved
South^r/est ,-■■ Supplementary Code Heard tut not Approved
Preparing and WIriolesaling Trades (Continued)
Specialized (*)
: Oyster Sui3"olementary Code AiToroved (iPresh Oyster)
Blue Crah ■ it ■ ii ■ ii
Lo'Dster Sup'olementarj'- Code Approved (Wholesale
Lohster)
Sponge " " ■ »■ »
Alaska herring Supplementary Code Heard hut not Approved
Specig-lized Processing Suhindu-stries
Canning
Salmon Independent Code Approved (Canned Ss,lmon)
Sardine
mexi England 3tipplementa,ry Code Approved
California , '^ " "
Tuna Canning Code
Clsjn Products • " , »
Oyster .. "- , "
Shrimp ' ■ ' , - n - .- h
California Mackerel Supiolementarjr Code Heard ''out not Approved
Alaska. Crg.h Included .under JSortb-^est and Alaska Prepar-
ing and Wholesaling Code
(*) Onl]" the suhindustries of this group for which specific supplemen-
tar3'- codes reached public hearing are listed imder this head. All the
others vrere grouped ?,dth the general preioaring and wholesaling trades of
the various regions,
9581
■ -IB-
Reduction {*)
Sardine Supplementaxy Code Approved (California Sardine)
Alaska Herring ' Supplementary Code Heard 'but not Approved
Menhaden ITational Code Only
Secondary Processin^'^ 5u"bindustries
Oyster Shell Crushing Independent Code Approved
Processed or Refined
Pish Oil (**) " » "
PERISHABILITY OP PRODUCTS AM) THE TPJLDE ORGANIZATION
The fact which chiefly explains the specialized organization of
the vrholesale distrihution of fishery products, and the intimate connec-
tion hetween wholesaling and certain kinds of processing, and tetween the
latter and the primary production, is the extreme perishability of the
raT/ product. Pish and shellfish intended to be canned must in general he
processed on the das'" on which they are landed. Pishing craft which
operate for anything hut the most local distribution are obliged to carry
ice to prevent the deterioration of their catches, as they used in sail-
ing vessel days to carry salt. Practically all fresh fish and shellfish
must be packed in ice for .land shipment, and must be transported by rail-
way express or some equally rapid service.
These cono-itions cause the cost of distributing fishery products
not cp»nne6,, smoked or salted to mount rapidlj'- with the radius, and put
the distant s'lipplier at a disadvantage in comparison with those nearer at
hand. They have also greatly affected the development of the consumer
demand for these products, as an increasing proportion of the population
of the United States has come to be located at a distance from the oceaJi
or other iiqportant fish-producing, waters.
DISTRIBUTIOII OP KOIffERI SUABLE PRODUCTS
The nonperishable processed products of the fisheries - that is,
canned, smoked and salted fish and shellfish - are mainly sold by the
processors to the general wholesale grocery trade, and not to the special-
ized fish-distributing trades above described. These operations were
specifically excluded from the jurisdiction of the National Pishery Code
and its supplements by paragraph ( d) of Section 1 of Article II. This
provision, slightly paraphre.sed, states that the Pishery Industrjr includes
the wholesaling of fish and all other commercial products of aquatic life
(*) A reduction plant converts fishery products into meal and oil, as
distinct from food for human: consumption. The raw material may be the
by-products of a, cannery, or the reduction plant may operate independent-
ly and utilize whole fish.
(**) This sub industry is included in the classification because its Code
was associated with the fishery codes for administrative purposes. It
can^hardly be said, however, to be a fishery industry, and will not be
discussed further in this report.
9581
-19-
onlj if the handler or distribntor hr.s ?lso done the processing. Since
the wholesale grocery concerns that distrihute canned, smoked and salted
fishery proCLUcts have not done any processing in connection with the
latter, they were excluded "by definition. The term processing, for this
purpose, was defined as including the operations described above as pre- ^
paring, and also free?;ing and packing in ice for shipment.
A substantial proportion of all fishery products pass throiogh the
hands of more than one wholesaler. In many cases the two are situated,
respectively, at, or near the port of landing and at some more central
distributing point. In the larger cities of the- country, however, there
is also a cla.ss of secondary wholesalers who specialize in supplying
hotels, restaurants, clubs, institutions and railroad and steamship com-
panies. These are soiuetimes known bjr the special narae of "purveyors".
As a rule the secondary as v/ell as, the primary wholesalers' who distribute
fresh or frozen fishery products ha^ndle the latter only.
EETAIL DISTBIB'UTIOIT OF FISHSEY PRODUCTS
The retail trade in fishery products is partly carried on by
specialized establishments handling little or nothing except fish and
shellfish, and partly by the general r etail grocery trade. .According to
the Census of Distribution of 1929 there were in that year 6,077 special-
ized seafood stores in the United Sta~tes, with a volxime of sales amount-
ing to $83,700,000,. The number of retail grocery stores and meat markets
handling fish and shellfish along with other lines in that jeax is not
known, but was ma.ny times larger. The specialized seafood stores tend to
be concentrated in the metropolitan areas, especially on the seacoa.st,
"and in other communities ?/here fishing is an important local industry.
All retail trade was excluded from the jurisdiction of the fishery
codes. An' association representing the specialized retail seafood dealers
of greaoter Uew York petitioned for. the placing of this part of the retail
business within the jurisdiction of the national Code (*)
It is understood, however, that an adverse decision was rendered.
There seems to be no record of , this decision in the files, but it was ap-
parently on the ground that the drawing of sUch a distinction between the
specialized seafood stores and the general retail grocery trade was not
practicable.
EXCLUSIOIf OF CSHTAIU GROUPS MOM THE FISHERY CODE INDUSTRY
It has already been stated that certain of the canning subindustries
expressed their xmwillingness to be Included in the Fishery Industry for
the purposes of the ITatlonal Code. Ultimately, petitions for exclusion,
under the authority of Article IX, Section 4, of the latter, were granted
to the salmon, tuna, shrimp, oyster and clam products canning groups (**)
(*) Fisherjr Section files: national Code, Classification Folder, letters
of May 25 and August 13, 1934.
(**) The dockets relating to the granting of these petitions are in the
Fishery Section files: National Code, Exceptions Folder: Canned Salmon
Industry, May 26, 1934; CanJied Tuna, Shrimp and Oyster Industries, Septem-
ber 24, 1934; New England Clam Canning Industry, November 14, 1934.
9581
-20-
Tiie Canned Salnon Indiistry desired and received an independent code.
It was contended that its size and iinportn.nce justified such a coiu-se,
and that the 6.istinctness of its prohlens raade it unlikely that it would
derive advantage from 'ohe activities of the National Code Authority. It
was later found that the latter feelinf';; er.isted heneath the surface in
other hranches of the Industry also, thoUi.°;h it did not in those cases re-
sult in an effective demand for independent codes.
The petition of the Tuna, Slirimp, Oyster and Clan Canning Industries
was that they he made suh.iect to the Canning Code. The granting of these
petitions was recomiTiended ty the Divisional Administrator mainly on the
ground that the desires of the groups concerned should riile. There \7as
reason to thiiiLc, however, that a wish to tal^e advantage of the relatively
long Yrorking hours and low minimum wages established hy the Canning Code
was actuallj'' the chief motive. So far as this was correct there is some
question whether the granting of. these petitions was consistent with the
hasic policies of the W.R.A.
On an impartial view it is hard to avoid the conclLision that, while
the sales problems of these fish and shellfish canning industries are much
like those of the Yvvlt -and Vegetable Canning Industry, their raw material
and to a great extent 'cheir manufacturing problems liiik them more closelj''
with the j'ishery Industry. They really constituted therefore, a,n inter-
mediate clo.ss. :It would probablsr have been wisest to treat them as an
independent industry or group of in6u.stries; but a well-integrated
organization wotild certainly tal-:e accoimt of the linlcs that connect them
both with the fishery and with the Pruit and Vegetable Canning Industries.
THE FACTOa 03? HfTBHSTiTE THADB - THE EAST
The proportion of the products of the fishery industry which moves
in interstate trade is very substantial, tho'ogh it varies greatly from
one branch to another, and is at present kno\7n only approximately.
Prom information obtained in part at public hearings, but mainly
from subseqiient conferences with industry members, it would appear that
of the total volume of fisherjr products landed in Massachusetts not less
than 70 or 75 per cent is subsequently shipped in a fresh or prepared
condition to other states. Of the volu'ne handled bjr the wholesale trades
of the T.ev lork metropolitan area fully 90 per cent come from without the
State, b\it probaily not more than X5 or 20 per cent are again shijjped
outside.
The State of Pennsylvania, including the greater part of the Phila-
delphia metropolitan area, drav/s almost its whole supply of fishery
products from outside its borders. The Baltimore market is believed to
draw about half its supply from outside Maryland, and reships over the
state line not much less than that proportion.
At least 80 per cent of the large fisherj?- production of Florida
goes outside the state. For the remainder of the South there are no pre-
cise figures. The interstate movement must be s^^bstantial, however,
because the largest centers of population, except New Orleans, are located
at considerable distances inland, and are not in Horth Carolina, Florida,
9581
-21-
Mississippi or Louisiana - the southern states most important for their
fishery output.
THE PACIFIC COAST AIID IMTEBSTATE TRA.-DE
Of the volume of fishery products landed, in California 60 to 55 per
cent are consumed "by canneries and reduction plants. A very large pro-
portion of the canned production ~ prohably not less than 80 or 90 per
cent - is shipped to other states or exported. The same is true of the
fish oil. A large part of the fish meal is consumed "by the California
Poultry Industry;, hut a suhstantial and increasing proportion is shipped
to other states. The 35 to 40 per cent of the production of the Cali-
fornia fisheries which is not canned or reduced to meal and oil is mainly
consxijned vdthin the^ state.
An overwhelming proportion of the fishery production of Washington,
Oregon and Alaska consists of salmon, herring and halihut, with the minor
species caught incidentally hy the halihijit fleet. Prom 70 to 75 per cent
of the Alaska production is accounted for hy the salmon consumed hy the
canneries, and another 20 per cent by the herring, which are to some
extent used for "ba,it and to some extent salted for human consuinption, hut
are largely reduced to meal and oil. Almost all this 90 or 95 per cent of
the prod\iction is ^shipped out of the Territory.
Of the salmon production of Washington and Oregon ahout 25 per cent
is canned, and of this at least 95 per cent is shipped out of the state
in which it was produced. Of the salmon production which is cons"uuned in
a fresh, mild-cured or smoked state, and of the halihut catch (which is
all consumed fresh or frozen), ahout 75 per cent is shipped to other
states.
On the "basis of- these approximate figures it may he estimated rough-
ly that not less than two-^thirds of the fishery production of the "[Jnited
States, and prohahly more, moves at least once, at some stage of its
preparation or vrholesale distri'bution, in interstate trade.
TRADE ORG-AIIIZATIOHS
Trade organizations in the Fishery Industr;;- "before the institution
of the U'.H.A. were numerous; hut T;ith few exceptions of consequence they
were neither efficient nor influential. Most of them were very local in
scope. This v/as due, of course, to the limitations on large scale dis-
trihution imposed- "by the perishability, of fishery products, and to the
great number and small average size of the enterprises composing the
Industry.
On the whole the national associations that had been established
had shown little vitality. This was true of the United States Fisheries
Association, which had for some time, been nearly or quite dormant when
it was reorganized for the purpose of sponsoring the national Code. The
individualistic psychology of the Industry's members had always made it .
difficult to obtain cooperative section and to collect dues for common
purposes; and this latter difficulty was of course accentuated by the
financial condition of most of the component enterprises during the de-
pression.
9581
The lar^ost concerns in the Canned Salmon Industry were memlDers of
an affiliate of the National Canners Association, though there was also
another local association in the Pacific llorthy/est . The Fresh Oyster
Industry had an association of long standing (The Oyster Growers and
De-alers Association of Eorth iunerica). A large proportion of the other
trade associations which presented fisher^ codes, however, were created
for the purpose. Little information is at present available as to what
has hecorne of these associations, other than the small minority of well
established ones, since the codes were suspended. The impression is,
however, that most of them are dormant, if not practically disbanded.
AJVAllTAGE OF A COM SYSTSi.i WITH HESPECT TO TRADE ORGAI^riZATlOM
One of the chief potentia^l advantages that the code system promised
for the Eisherj'- Industr;- was the encouragement of the habit of trade
organization and of cooperative activity. If the codes had been in exist-
ence longer, and if their administrative bodies had got well organized
and had had a reasonable period of smooth sailing, it is likely that these
habits vrould hs,ve become established, independently of the codes. As
things vrere, however, the 6.isappointment with the results of the latter
adverselj'' affected the associations as well.
It seems doubtful whether, under the unfavorable conditions of the
Industr;^, efficient trade organization will now develop spontaneously
in the Fishery Industry. Yet hardly any industrjr is more in need of co-
operative organization for dealing with its problems. Some system
analogous to the II. R. A. , even if the element of coercion were largely
discarded, might still prove of great value in supplying an incentive for
such a development . ■
LABOR ORgMTIZATIOE '- GEI^IERAL
The conditions just described as accounting for the weakness of
trade associations in the Fishery Industry also explain in part the rela-
tive lack of influential labor organizations. The latter fact, however,
is also due partly to the comparatively small prop-ortion of the personnel
who can be described as employees, and to the fact that a great many even
of those who may be so designated merit the description in a qualified
sense only. The perishability of the products of the Industry, moreover,
and the small size of most of its units have made it comparatively easy
for workers to obtain concessions from their employers without much
formal organization or resort to prolonged strikes.
LABOR ORGAMIZATIOII IIT THE FROGESSIIIG Alg). WHOLESALING IHDUSTRIES
, The woi-kers in some of the fishery canning industries are organized
in labor unions of the ordinary type. In the case of the Canned Salmon
Industry the situation is complicated by the divergent conditions' in the
canneries in Alaska and in the United States proper, and by the distinc-
tions between the white and the Oriental workers brought from the United
States, and between these and the Alaska resi6.ents, a third of whom are
Indians. As a result a number of different labor organizations have been
active in this laartic-alar field.
9581
-23-
The enrployees of the preparing and wholesaling trades in some of
the large eastern centers, particularly New York City, are strongly xmion—
ized and in consequence receive relatively high wages.
LAEOa ACTIVITY IN TIIE FISHERIES PROPER
In the parts of the primary producing industry in which the status
of einployees approxiraa.tes most closely to that of wage earners in the
ordinary sense, and particularly in the New England groundfishery, there
has heen a good deal of activity on the part of fishermen's "bodies which
may he called lahor unions.
Most other organizations of fishermen, however, while partaking of
the characteristics of hoth trade associations and lahor unions, verge
rather toward the former. If they do not include fishermen working on
shares as well as owners of fishing craft in their memhership, they have
heen looked on as representing more or less the interests of "both class-
es. At the hearing on the proposed Siipplementary Code for the Florida
Fisheries the cleavage of interest and of opinion was ohviously not
"between the owners of fishing "boats and their crews, "but "between the
independent "boat owners and their employee fishermen on the one side and
the wholesaler "boa,t owners on the other.
Except in those tranches of the Industry in which a "beginning
has already "been made in building -up la'bor organizations in the ordinary
sense, it is doubtful whether further spontaneous development in that
direction is to "be looked for. Insofar as t"he pro"blems of a majority of
fishermen who work on shares can "be descri"bed as la"bor pro"blems at all,
they would proha"bly be most effectively dealt with, along with those of
the owners of the small enterprises that eniploy them, loj trade associa-
tions including both classes, provided only that the latter were
organized with s-'off icient flsxibility" for the purpose.
9581
"24-
CEAPTER II
THE PEODTjCTIOI-T OE THE INDUSTRY
TIIB GROSS VOLn^E OF BUSIEESS • • ■
Since the Fishery Industry, as defined for code purposes, included
the wholesaling and processing industries as well as the primary produc-
tion, the volume of "business that came within, the jurisdiction of these
codes represented the handling of almost all fish and shellfish at least
twice, and to a considerahle extent three times.
The available data for the gross volume of "business covered "by these
codes are shoTsn, for 1929 and 19.33, in Ta'ble I. These figures, however,
are not very satisfactory, and some ejcplanation is necessary to prevent
the dra.wing of incorrect conclusions from them.
The volume of sales reported oj the Census of Distri"bution for 1929
covered only 1,448 esta'blishments, whereas the Bureau of Fisheries for
the sa;ne year reported data for ahout 2,000 v/holesaling units, and this
total in its turn is known not to have "been quite coroplete. The volume
of wholesale distri"b\ition in 1929 viras therefore somewhat in excess of the
$243,582,000 sho\7n in Ta'ble I. '
TjffiLE I
GROSS VOLUl'IE OF SALES OF THE FISEEHY IlipUSTRY,
, , BY- MAIN DIVISIONS, 1929 MD 1933"'
Division . . ; "Qnit Sales ' ' ■
.■ , . (in thousands)
1933 ■' 1929 ■■ ■ ■ ■ .
Total $334,082 a/ $504,911
primary production 60,113a/ 123,054 t/
Wholesale Distri"bution 156,585 243,682
processing 107,384 c/ 138,175 h/
Source: Bureau of Fisheries, Fishery Industries of the
United States, 1930, pp. 133, 142; 1934, p. 115.
Census . of Wholesale Distri'bution, 1953,
Vol. I, p. A-3.
a/ Estimated in part "by the author,
^/ Data for the Mississippi River area included in these
figures are for 1922; 1929 data for this area are not
available.
c/ Data for the South Atlantic and Gulf and the Great Lakes
preas, included in these figures are for 1932; those for
the Mississippi River area are for 1931,
9581
"25-
For 1933 the CensTis of DistrilDution reported data for 1,880 whole-
sale seai"ood estfLblishments. The actual nura'ber certainly did not increase
to say such extent from 1929 to 1933, ejid nore protahly decreased. The
only likely explanatioii of the discrepancy is that the 1933 canvass was
considera"bly more complete than the earlier one. Moreover, though some
of the items of cost which account for the spread bet^^een the prices paid
for fish and shellfish to primary producers and those received "by whole-
salers are knoT?/n to he very inelastic, this fact would prohahly not he
sufficient to account for the increase in the ratio of the latter price
to the former from approximately two for one in 1929 to nearly three for
one in 19 33,
It is fairly certain, therefore, that while the gross volume of
sales of the Pishery Industry as shown in Tahle I is too low for "both
1929 and 1933, the figure for the latter year is relatively a good deal
higher than that for 1929., and is consequently not comparahle with the
latter. The true totals are unknown, hut estimates of $550,000,000 for
1929 and of $350,000,000 for 1933 would prohahly not he far wrong.
Tor the sales volume of the preparing and wholesaling trades there
are no data more recent that those for 1933; hut the gross total for the
Industry in 1934, coi^Tparahle with the figures just given, may not have
heen far from $450,000,000, with totals for the country at large, for
1933, 1929 and 1908. The latter was the year of the last countrywide
survey prior to 1929. The figures for the South Atlantic and Gulf, the
Great Lslces and the Missipsippi River areas for 1933 have had to he
estimated.
TABLE II
QPMTITY MB VALUE 01 TI-IE EISHEEY CATCH,
BY ABEA, 1908, 1929 At^D 1933
(in Thousands of pounds and Thousands of Dollars)
Area
1933,
1929
1908
Qjiantity
Value
Qp.antity
Valu-a
Quantity
Value
Total
U.S.*.
and Alaska 2,908,004a/
60,113a/ 3
,567,277
123,054
2,111,267
57,389a/
New England 499,936
13,486
694,286
29,072
(
I'iiddle At- 169,753
4,811
190,773
14,138
(
lantic
(
Chesapeake ■ 272,380
5,961
274,674
11,581
(1,462,388
40,299
South Atlantic
\
& Gulf
335,000h/
6,938h/
535,395
14,904
Great L;
alces 65,000h/
4,671h/
85,389
6,788
106,632
3,767
Pacific
860,161
13,988 1
,034,434
25,038
176,150
6,839
Kississip-oi 75,000h/
2,000h/
100,903c
/ 4,449c/
148,284
3,125
River
Alaska
630,774
9,158
651,423
17,084
217,813
3,359L/
Source:
Bureau of the Census, Fisheries of
the United
States, 1908
pp.26
and 299; Bureau
of Eisheri
Bs, Eishe
ry Industries of the United
States, 1930, p.
133; 1934
, p. 98
a/
Estimated in part \)j the author.
^
Estimated hy the author.
c/
1922 figures; 1929 figures
not aval
lahle.
9581
No compiled figures for the landings of fishery products in 1934
are as yet available. From prelim nary data,- hov/ever, the total quan~
tity may te estimated at 3,350,000,000 pounds, and the value at" $79,500,-
000. These figures indicate- an' increase of approximately 16 per cent in
quantity and of 33 per cent in' value from 1933. They are only ahout
seven per cent helow the quantity of 1929, but 35 per cent "below the
value.
If the quajitity landings of fishery products from 1929 to 1934 are
averaged, it appears that there has "been an increase of ahout 44 per
cent since 1908, This is a substantial gain; but it has been- distrib-
uted very unequally betvireen the various sections of the country,
Prom 1929 to 1933 the quantity of fishery products fell off by
approximately 19 per cent. This was a substantial decline for a staple
class of foodstuffs, and points to a competitive situation unfavorable
to the Fishery Industry under depression conditions,
THE OUTSTMDIHG SFEGIES
The total landings of fish and shellfish are made up of about 150
species or group's of species. The backbone of the Industry, however,
consists of 12 such groups, which account for -about 80 per cent of the
annual total of edible species (*), Table HI shows the quantity and
value of these 12 groups in 1933, 1929 and 1908,- '
The following quotation from Fishery Industries of the United
States, 1929 (**), summarizes the, manner in which these major fishery
products are uti^lizea, and -the parts of- the couatry with which their
production is associated.-
"Of first importance is .the salmon, which forms the basis of
a va.luable canning industry on our Pacific coast from California
north to the Bering Sea. Of second importance is the pilchard,
which is utilized in California for the canning of sardines. Had-
dock, which is taken on our North Atlantic seaboard, is third in
importpnce, and is used mainly for manufacture into fillets, which
is the basis of the rapidly, expanding fresh and frozen package
fish trade. Sea herring arg fourth in importance. These- fish are
used extensively in Maine for canning as sardines, in Alaska and
lew England for salting and. smoking, and large quantities also
are frozen, for use as bait.
"Oysters arefifth in importance. : These are- taken commercial-
ly in nearly every seacoast • State, Those taken in the more northern
latitudes generally are marketed fresh, while those taken in the
sou.thern states form the basis for an extensive canning industry.
Shrimp are sixth in importance and f oi-Tn- the basis- for the rapidly
growing canning industry along the South Atlantic and Q-ulf coasts,
* The only inedible species of major inroortance is the- menhaden. If
the catch of the latter is subtracted from the totals- of Table II,
the totals of Table III represent approximately 80 per cent of the
remainder,
** Bureau of Fisheries: Fisheries Document No, 1095, pages 727-728,
9581
-27- ■
Cod, wliich is seventh in importance, is talcen mainly in the vessel
fisheries prosecuted from the Hew England States, and is used ex-
tensively for salting. Mackerals, eithth in importance, are taken
in our iTorth Atlantic sections and also in California. Those on
the Atlantic sea„l)oo.rd are majrketed ma,inly fresh and frozen; al-
though considerable quantities are salted and canned; while those
taken in California are used almost entirely for canning,
"Flounders, which rank ninth in importance, are talcen in the
marine fisheries of all sections. Tuna and tunalike fishes,
tenth in importance, are native to the waters of California, and
the high seas of the Pacific south from that State to Chile. These
fishes form the hasis for an important canning industry in Califor-
nia. Halitut, which are of eleventh importance in volume, are
taken principally in the North Pacific, ajid are distributed in the
fresh and frozen condition to all parts of the coiontry. Crabs,
which a„re of twelfth importance, are taken chiefly in the Chesa-
peake Bay region, where thej form one of the most important fish-
eries there."
The prominent position of salmon and pilchard in Table III, and in
■less degree tha„t of tuna and halibrat , is a measure of the great relative
importsiice at the present time of the fisheries of the pacific coast
axid Alaska. The growth of these Pacific fisheries to their present
position is in large part a development of the past 25 years. Prior to'
1910 or thereabouts the relative importance of the cod, haddock and
ma,ckeral fisheries of Hew England, of the oyster fisheries of Rhode
Island and Connecticut, the Middle Atlantic coast and the Chesapeake
area, and of the menhaden and shrimp fisheries of the South, was
substantially greater than it is now,
THE EJCPORT THA33E
The Fishery Industry is not, a contributor of the first importance
to the export trade of the United States. The nearest to an exception
to this statement is supplied by the exportations of canned salmon and
sardines. These have contributed to the cheap seafood supply of the
Orient, Latin America ;and the Mediterranean countries, and have to a
considerable extent replaced on the list of our exports the salt cod-
fish at one time so extensively shipped to the same destinations from
Hew England. Exportations of fresh or frozen fishery products are
very limited.
Table IV presents the outstanding figures for the export of
fishery products for recent years.
THE COIIPETITIOH OF IIilPORTS
Importations of fishery products into the United States are not an
extremely inroortant item in our inward foreign trade; but they are so
distributed as to constitute competition of a, serious kind for certain
branches of the Industry. Save for one or two items practically all our
imports of fresh and frozen fishery products come fron Canada. The ex-
ceptions consist of the frozen svrordfish and tuna, which of recent years
ha.s been brought in on an increasing scale from Japan,
9581
-28-
T13LS III
QUMTITY Al'ID ViilUE OF ..THE nSIST/ CATCH, 3Y 12
IMPOHTiaTT SPECIES. 1908, 1929 j\iID 1933
(in Thousands of pounds and Thousands of Dollars)
Species
1953
Quantity V;ilue
1929
1908
Qiiantity Value
Quant i t y Value
Total, all
Species 2,908,004a/
60,113a/ 3,567,277 123,054 2,111,267 57,389a/'
Total, 12
Group s 2
,119,511a/
39 , 164a/
2,573,741
80,196
971,430
29,065
Salmon
574,066
12,172
584,539
20,464
. 289,371
5,5301)//
Pilchard or Call
_
fornia Sardine
509,805
1,505
■ 651,802
3,588
4,638
30
Haddock
168,613
3,894 ■
261,653
9,142
59,^988
1 , 308
Herring
202,234
1,110
283,355
2,480
168,265
1,809
Oysters
• 70,808t/
5,715h/
152,143
17,074
178,293
12,721
Shrimp
102,633d/
1 , 919;b/
■ 113,263
4,575
19,080
494
Cod
123,998
2, 231
115,652
3,541
115,455
3,049
Hacker el
111.152
•1,321
122,094
3,277
11,842
864
Flounders
60,716
. 2,103
75,329
3,479
23,354
538 ;
Tuna
■ 71,026
2,977
75,524
3,938
359
12
Hal i tut
42,639
2,537
55,297
6,413
40,133
1,718 '■
Crats
81,821
1,630
82,089
2,225
60,651
942
Source:
a/
9581
Bureau of the Census, Fisheries of the United States, 1908, pp. 30
and 298: Bureau of Fisheries, Fishery industries of the United
States.' 1930, pp. 38, 139, 140; 1934, pp. 103-6.
Fstime.ted in part "by the author.
Estimated "by the author.
-29- ■•
Tlie fisheries of New England have to' meet the .conipetition of ground-
fish, mackeral and lobsters imported from the maritime provinces of
Canada. The American craft on the G-reat Lalres have to meet that of the
Canadian -products of the same "bodies of water and of the interior lakes
of the prairie provinces. The halihut fishery of the Pacific northwest »
has to fcope the coriipetition of the British Columtia, catch.
TABLE IV
■ EXPORTS OE FISHERY PRODUCTS, BY KIHi) OE PRODUCT,
1929, 1933 AKD 1934 •
(Values Expressed in Thousands of Dollars)
f — —
Kind of Unit of 1934 1933 1929
Product Quantity -: ttt ~~ .7 771 ~ 7 177 77
■Quantity Value Quantity Value Qjiantity Velue
Total Value ' — 14,032 8,512 24,275
Eish ajid Shell-
fish, Eresh or
.Frozen 1,000 lbs. 17,349 1,461 16,294 1,458 18,179 2,510
i;ish and Shell-
fish, Canned,
Preserved, 1,000 Ihs. 98,826 10,542 64,072. 5,917 195,130 20,991
etc.
Eish Oils 1,000 lbs, 6,364 194 ■ 5,849 163 1,120 95
Sponges 1,000 lbs. 83 ' ' 93 72 68 124 152
Oyster - " ■ .
shells 1,000 lbs. 114,699 360 127,680 385 95,867 444
Eish Meal
for Feed 1,000 lbs. 50,995 1,172 17,736 346 .
Pearl or Shell
Buttons 1,000 gross 753a/ 210a/ 792a/ 175a/ 242 83
Source: Foreign Commerce and Navigation, 1930, pp. XVIII and XL; Monthly
Suiimary, December, 1933, pp. 3, 4, 16; Honthly Summary, December,
1934, p. 6. '
a/ Includes other buttons.
Underlying conditions make .this Canadian competition more serious
than might appear on the surface. The population of the parts of Canada
in which the fisheries of tha,t country are localized is much less dense
than tha± of the adjoining portions of the United States, This means
that the Canadian fisheries have in general been less depleted, so that
they provide relatively larger sttpplies with less expenditure of effort.
9581
-30-
The domestic market for the Canadian production is relatively less im-
portant than' in the case of our oT/Ti industry. The Canadian fishing dis-
tricts, moreover, tend to he characterized' by a sinii.)le standard and a
low cost of living, ■ : . ;
The recent development of an import tra,de in
tuna from Japan has "been mentioned. That country
United States consideraDle quantities of canned fi
has recently developed a trade in fish meal for us
as p 011.1 try feed. Japan has a much denser populati
domestic consuiiiption of fishery products than has
eries and the industries affiliated with them have
intelligently developed, and it has the advantage
lahor at low wages.
frozen swordfish and
also ships to the
sh and shellfish, and
e as fertilizer and
on and a far larger
Canada; hat its fish-
heen intensively and
of ahundant skilled
Tahle V sixmmarizes the outstanding figures for the development of
the import trade of the United States in fishery products.
TABLE V
GEIJERAL IMPORTS OF FISHERY PRODUCTS, BY KIIID OP PRODUCT,
. .. - . 1929, 1933 ittlD 1934 .
(Values Expressed in Thousands of Dollars) ■
Kind of
Product
Unit of
Qp.antitj''
1934
1933
1929
(Quantity Value Quantity -Value Qp.ahtity Value
Total Value 29,559
Pish & Shellfish,
Eresh or frozen 1,000 lhs.l37,?87 9,118 118,665
Fish & Shellfish,
Canned, pre-
1,000 ros.148,365 14,008 169,746
1,000 gals. 8,019 3,775 6,463
served, etc.
Fish Oils
Shells, Unmanu-
factured
Siponges and
Manufacture s-
Pearl or Shell
Buttons
Fish Scrap aiid
Fish iieal
1,000 Ihs; 9,010 ..•973 ■.■9,503
1,000 Ihs. 479 388 465
1,000 gross ■■ 849 ' 301 1,030
1,000 Ihs. 79,905 996 59,418
27,090 53,230
,7,650 193,211 15,787
14,498 176,346 23,985
2,365 17,983 8,971
1,186 : 17, 693 2,918
375 965 1,183
326 830 436
689
Source: Foreign Conroerce and Navigation,
lionthly Summary, Deceinher, 1933 ,
Secemher, 1934, pp.. 19 and 28.
1930, pp. XLI and XLIII;
pp. 17 and 27; Monthly Summary,
9581
1-
THE ?E?. CiPITA SEMimP FOE FISHERY PRODUCTS
The per capita consiimption of fi
is small in corp arisen V7ith. tha.t of m
is iDrought out "by the data in TaDle V
in the fact that a relatively larre p
at the present tine lives at a dir.'.t;u
products in large quantities. Irnprov
commodities can he shipped into the i
keeping them from spoiling in troiisit
overcoming this difficulty. The cost
durirg shipment, however, mounts rapi
shery products in the United States
ost other incort'Mit countries. This
I. The erplanaticu, of course, lies^
ronortion of the Ajiericnn popula,tion
ce froa weters supplying fishery
eiients in the speed with which such
ulterior, and in the facilities for
J have accoiuplished something toward
of the preservation of fresh fish ■
dly \7ith the distance.
TIe earliest settlers, during the first lean years hefore they
"became well esta"blished as farmers tuid stock raisers, were relatively
dependent for food on the a"bundant and easily exploited supplies of fish
and shellfish available in their new homes. Froni the Indians they learned
"both methods of catching these products and the ha"bit of giving them a
prominent place in their diet. Later there developed an important export
trade in salt fish with the West Indies and Latin America.
DBCLII-IE m COWSmiER DEMAND IK THE KIl^TEEiJTH CEIITUHY
Until the 1870«i or the 1880' s there continued to he a relativelj''
large con swap t ion of salt fish away from the sea'board. With the develop-
ment of the large-scale distri'bution of fresh neat in refrigerated ca.rs,
however, and with the rise in the West of generations vhicli had never had
access to siipplies of fresh fish, and which had lost the habit of includ-
ing then in their diet, the demand for such salted products fell off.
The ITorth Atlantic mackerel catch, which may be taken as an illustrative
Ciise, had exceeded a hundred million pounds in abo-at h<?.lf the years from
1845 to 1885. From the latter date to 1925, ho-.7ever, this catch never
reached 50,000,000 pounds and exceeded 25,000,000 in onl3^ five or six
years,
TABLE vl
PEH CAPITA COFSUliPTIOil OF FISH A?"D SHELLFISH
m CEHTAIH CCUITTFJSS IIT RECSIIT YEARS a/
per
Capita
per Capita
Country
Con
suraption
Country
Consumption
(P
ou-nds)
(Founds)
Japan
55
S-pain
16
Sweden
52 .
France
14
Norway
44 -^
Ul'ITED STATES
13
Denmark
39
■ Australia
13
Portugal
S7
Uiuguay
12
England ;
?nd Wales
35
Ai-gentian
10
Canada
29
Italy
9
lletherlai
ads
29
Chile
8
Germany
18
Egypt
7
Belgium
17
Source:
Fishing G-azette, Febru.ary,
1935, -pp. 9,
10.
a/
The United States figure is as of 1931;
the figures for other
countries as
of various re
cent years.
9581
-32-
Within the past 20 years the development of the Pacific coast fish-
eries and the growth of large cities in that part of the coiontry have
done something to offset the conditions just descrihed. This is why the
per capita demand for fishery products during recent years has "been great-
er than that indicated hy the Census of 1908. It is not likely, however,
that the average has "been as large at any tine during the past two gener-
ations as it was earlier in the nineteenth Century.
mimVOIlABLS C0MPETITIV3 FOglTIOlT MP POSgiELS IM.IEI)IES
This decline in the relative importance of fishery products in the
American dietary has put the Industry in an unfavorable position in com-
petition with other protein foods, v/hen price relationships have been
adverse. So far as this disadvantage can he overcome, it will have to he
done partly by publicity and by the encouragement of the consumer to de-
sire more fish and shellfish, and partly by improvements in trade organi-
zation and in the facilities for distribution from the ports of landing
over an increasing radius. The development of the packaged fish trade
out of Boston has already, within the last 15 years, brought about a def-
inite improvement in the latter respect.
THE miUBAL SUPPLY AIID THE PROBLEM OB"' GOITSEEVATIOU
The natural supply of aquatic life from which the production of the
fisheries is drawn is not unlimited. In certain directions the activi-
ties of the Industrjr have, during the past generation or two, encroached
on it seriously.
The greatest danger of such encroachment exists, first, in the case
of enclosed or semi-enclosed waters like the Great Lakes sjid Chesapeal-e
Bay; ^lecond, in that of sessile species like oysters and clams; and third,
in that of fish the propagation of which is dependent on njigration into
rivers to spama, as in the case of salnon, shad and sturgeon. The extent
of the danger of encroachment on the supply of free-swimming pelagic
species is a matter of controversy. In the case of the groundfisheiy on
the Newfoundland banks, which have been exploited over a long period in
relatively shallow waters, the fishing fleets have of late years had to
move the main center of their operations several hundred miles further
from the Horth Atlantic ports than was formerly the case. With respect
to most of these pelagic species, however, there seems at present to be
no conclusive evidence of encroachment on the supply in the waters ex-
ploited by American fishermen.
Conservation laws on the. part of Hew England states to protect the
supplj;- of lobsters date back many years. Provisions on this subject were
incorporated in the Wholesale Lobster Code, with little controversy ex-
cept with regard to details. The facts as to the supply of blue crabs in
Chesapealne Bay, and the problem of preserving it, have been complicated
by a controversy between the States of Maryland and Virginia. This con-
troversy - s.ccentuated by the probably unwise insistence of the Adminis-
tration (*) on the writing of certain conservation provisions into the
Blue Crab Code - played a large part in the wrecking of the latter.
(*) The word Administration, here and wherever else it is used in this
report, refers to the .National Recovery Administration.
9581
-33-
The seriousness of the conservation protlein in the case of the Great
Laices is shown "by the decline in the catch of the American fisheries in
those waters from 107,000,000 pounds in 1908 to 85,000,000 in 1929. The
total catch of American and Cana,dian fleets in the Pacific halitut fish-
ery is restricted lij an International Commission appointed as the result
of a treats'- signed in 1924.
Very serious encroachment on the supply of salmon in Alaska uas ter-
minated, also in 1924, iy the passage "by Congress of the White Act, which
gave to the Bureau of Fisheries extensive powers of control. Since that
time the Alaska salmon fishery has "been rigidly regulated, and the catch
to a considerahle degree stabilized.
The increasingly extensive operations, during the last few years,
of two floating sardine reduction plants just outside the territorial
waters of California, in d.efiaxLce of the state conservation laws, led to.
allegations of the depletion of the supply?- of this species.' The state-
ments on the suhject in connection with the writing and administration
of the California Sardine Code were more or less "biased, and it is dif-
ficult to determine the real facts. On the whole the evidence now avail-
able seems inconclusive, with the burden of proof rather on those who
allege that- depletion ha.s occurred. ;
THE COHSBEVATIOE PROBLEM AITS TIIS CODES
There is no doubt of the seriousness of the conservation problem in
the case of several of the fisheries above mentioned. The difficult
question is the extent to which it was or should have been feasible to
■ solve the problem through the medium of the codes. The only really ef-
fective action that has been talcen toward the conservation of fishery
products in the past has been bj^ means of penal legislation by Congress
or, in a few instances, by individual states. The proponents of fishery
codes, on the whole, showed little interest in the subject, and little
willingness to cooperate in the solution of the problem. Such conserva-
tion provisions as were written into these codes were put through by the
insistence of the Administration, Hiere was abundant justification for
such insistence in principle, but a serious question whether, under all
the circumstances, it was wise.
9581
-34-
CHAPTEH III
THE PRICES OP PI SHEET PRODUCTS
PRICES TO PRI!',tAEY PRODUCERS
Pigures have teen given in Table II for the quantity a.nd value of the
fishery catch landed in the United States in 1908, 1929 and 1933. Tahle
VII shovis the average price per pound received "by the primary producers in
each important -area and for the country at large for the same years.
This tahle indicates that the average price to producers fell from
1929 to 1933 T3y approximately 38 per cent. This was not much more than the
decline over the same period in the average ,of all commodity prices, Tahle
VIII, however, shows that for several important species the falling off
from 1929 to 1933 was suhstantially in excess of 38 per cent. The average
price of California, sardines declined "by a ha.lf , sxi5. those of shrimp and of
mackerel between 50 and 60 per cent. The avera^ge price of salmon, of hep-
ring, of cod and of halihut dropped hetv/een 40 and 50 per cent. In the
case of crahs, oysters, tuna and flounde'rs, on the other liand, the decline
was relatively moderate,
Ta-hle II has shorm that the landed value of all fishery products -
that is, the gross revenue of the fishery industry proper - fell from 1929
to 1933 "by 51 per cent, while the quantity declined hy 19 per cent. These
figures indicate' that, while the contraction in the quantity demand during
the downward pliase of the depression was hy no means negligible, it was
the decline in the unit price that accounted for the greater part of the
shrinkeige in the dollar volume,
TJ\3LE VII
- AVERAGE PRICE PER POUIID OP THE PISHERY" CATCH,
BY AREA, 1908, 1929 and 1933
Average Price
Area. (Cents Per Pound)
1933 1929 1908
Average for the U„S»
and Alaska 2.1 3,4 2,7
Hew England 2,7
MidaJLe Atlantic ' 2,8
Chesapeake 1,9
South Atlantic & Gulf 2.1 a/
Great Lakes 7,2 a/
Pacific 1.6
Ilississippi River 2,7 a/
Alaska 1. 5
Soua-ce: Computed from data shown in Table II,
a/ Based on author's estimates.
b/ 1922 price,
9581
4,2
(
7.4
(
2.8
4.2
(
2.8
(
7.9
3.5
2.4
3.9
4.4 b/
2,1
2.6
1,5 a/
— oo"
Ti^LS VIII
DECLiiiE Hi -ayhilge psicss ?cr tie catch of the
12 LiCST IlvIPOHTAUT Sx'ECiSS, lS29-19o3
Avsr
a£'e Price
Per Cent
Species
(Cents
per Po-and)
Decline
1933
1929
1929 to 1933
Average for
Specified
G-roups
1.8
3,1
42.0
Salmon
2.1
3.5
40.0
Pilchard or California
Sardine
0.3
Oo6
50.0
Haddo clc
2-3
3.5
34.3
Herring
0o5
0.9
44.5
Oysters
8,1
llo2
27,7
Shrimp
1.9
4c 0
52.5
Cod
1,8
3,0
40,0
Mackerel
1.2
2.7
55.6
Plounders
3o 5
4,6
23.9
TTina
4„3
5.2
19o3
Halitut
5c 9
llo5
48o7
OralDs
2c 1
2,7
22,3
gource: Compi
j-ted from data.
Sh0'.7n
m Ta'^ole HI,
The dJTOp from 1929 to 1933 of 40 to no;:?:!/ SO per cent in the average
price of the majority of the most inycrtanb s^iecies shortld "be compared- not
only uith the falling-off , as meastir'.'d "by the 3. L. S. index, of ahout 31
per cent in general commodity prices over the riaiae period, "but with the
decline of 54 ]per cent in the price of meat; the most closely competing
class of foodstuffs. The drop in the averc^ge prices of California sar*-
dines, of shrimp, of mackerel and of h.ali"but v/as greater tha.n the decline
in the price of meat; while in the case of herring the falling off was
about the saiiie,
PHI CBS TO r.?HCLESALI]IlS AlH). PIlOCaSSOHS
The availa"ble information with regard to i^holesalers' selling prices
for fish ejad shellfish and the prices of processed fisher^r jDroducts is un-
satisfactory. The price of canned salmon, however, declined ahout 40 per
cent from 1929 to 1933. Because of the inelasticity of important elements
of distri"buting cost, such as railvray express rates, ice and la"bor, the
fall in the wholesale prices of fresh and frozen products did not parallel
the decline in the prices received "bjr the primsry producers, Becajuse of
the xDorishahility of these coimmodities, hov;everj together with the severe
competition of the large . nxijii"ber of relatively small units in most "bra^nches
of the vrholesale tra-de, the difference in the decline of the two sets of
prices v;3.s proha'bly a good deal less than might "be inferred from a consid-
eration of costs alone.
9531
-36-
t/hen the N. R. A. was first organized^ it was the ahnormal price
deflation is some loranches of the Fishery Industry that supplied the
initial incentive to associations and other groups to come forward as
proponents of codes. The remedies first asked for were of a direct and
drastic soft, though perhaps no more so than in the case of many other
industries. If these proposals had heen put into effect at an early
stage of the program, as similar ones were in other instances, the
history of. the fishery codes \7ould have "been very different from vrha^t
it actually was.
As things were, the writing of these codes was delayed till the
Administration had "b.ecome less willing to approve drastic provisions
for the regulation of production and prices. The resulting controver-
sies affected adversely the psychological attitude of the Industry to-
ward the codes, the willingness of its mem'bers to comply with the pro-
visions ultimately written, and their readiness to pay assessments,
THS FHICS EB3JI.ATI0IT AIID THE ITIHAIICIAL FOSITIOH 0? ?ISHEaY EKTEEPHISES
Tlhe effect of the deflation in the prices of fishery products from
1929 to 1933 on the financial position of the numerous enterprises,
mostly, small, which are engaged in the Industry was very serious. In
the case of the primary production the N, R, A, study of fishermen's
earnings showed, for the vessels reported on, a decrease over the four
yes.rs of 53 per cent in the average value of catch per vessel, 'and of
48 per cent in the average vessel share of gross profit. As against
these declines the princip)al items of overhead expense remained nearljr
or quite unchanged. As' a result, the. average overhead per vessel in
1933, after depreciation, was $7,952, while the .average vessel share,
against which the overhead is charged, v^as only $4,340, A sulDstantial
average net loss wa,s shovm in 1933 "by every, geographical area except
California, where the average gross profit ajid overhead per vessel were
ahout equal. The .loss wa,s particularly heavy. in the North Atlantic
fisheries and. on the Grea,t LaJ-ces,
In the case of the wholesaling and processing divisions there are
few definite figures Tflth regard to the financial effect of the price
decline d-ujing the depression. The aggregate net current assets of a
group of 21 of the principal wholesale' dealers in New Yorl<: City, how-
ever, fell off from 1930 to 1933 hy more than 25 per cent, and the net
worth of the sajne group dropped "by 30 per cent. There was a decline in
the net current a,ssets of 17 of the 21 firms over the three years, in-
cluding all the larger' ones, and a decline in the net worth of 18 of the
21, The general complaint, at the time the fishery codes were present-
ed, of a shortage of. working capital in the preparing and wholesaling
trade suggests a similar situation in other centers of distrihution,
RgLATIOHSHIP OF FISH AMD LEAT PRICES '
Since provisions for the regulation of prices v/hether directly or
indirectly 'bj means of' a control of production, hulked so large amoP-g
those originally desired hjr representatives of, this Industry, it "becomes
a ma.tter of special interest to inquire to v.rhat eztent the prices of
fishery products appear to vary independently of. the economic situation
9581
-37--
outside the Industry itself, and, consequentljr to "be susceptible of such
regulation,
THB STUDY OF t/iA.CI{i3HEL AED IIMT :P?J05S.
It h3.s heen generally conceded Toy those l)est acquainted nith the
Industry tha^t some relationship exists betvreen the prices of fisherjr
products and of meat. Until the present study was made, however, little
or nothing had "been done to analyse the relationship statistically*
Such an analysis is a, complex task, since the price of every important
fishery products appears to hehave, in part, independently.
So far it has heen practicable to study the relationship only in
the case of the mackerel catch of the Atlantic coast. This particular
fishery vras selected tecause of the "bearing of the price received for
its products on the working of the production control provision of the
Mackerel Fishery Code, Hot/ever, there is no reason to suppose that the
relo,tiojiship with the price of meat (*) in this case is not illustra.tive
in an approximate p/ay of the general situation.
The charts and ta'oles pertaining to this study of the relationship
of mackerel and meat prices are too voluminous to present as a psxt of
the present report. The evidence,, however, leaves no doulDt that the
two principal factors accounting for the price received hy the mackerel
fishermen at any given time are to quajitity landed and the price of
meat. The Quantity of other species of fish caught a.t the same time,
the quantitj^ of mackerel imported, and the number of vessels fishing in
proportion to the catch, are a.lso factors, but only secondary ones. It
is reasonabljr certain that a foi"m\ila can be ^'rorked out v/hereby, if these
factors were known, the price which would be paid for a. specified quan-
tity of mackerel landed in a. given month could be forecase within fairly
narrow limits of accuracy,
BEAaiirC- OF THE CQlJPiaiSO]g Oil THE COHTEOL 0? FISHESY PaiCES
If this is the case, a serious doubt at once arises as to how fax
it is possible to control the price of any fishery product, either
directly or by manipulating the quantity of the catch alone. Something
further vrill be said on the subject in discussing the production con-
trol larovision of the Mackerel Fishing Code,
The price of meat is subject to cyclical fluctuations more ex-
treme than those of commodity prices in genera,l. The prices of some
importa/nt species of fish, including m_ackerel,' show variations even
more extreme than in the case of meat. Such a situation is plairly
(*) The immediate competition is between fish and. meat; but there is
some reason to thinlc that the variations in the prices received by
fishermen correspond more closely to the movement, of the prices
paid to faA-mers for livestocl: and poultrjr. It does not appear,
however, that a coriiparison of the latter instead of the price of
neat with fish prices \70uld affect materipAly the statement in the
text, either here or in Cha,pter XIV.
9581
- ■ ■ ; -38- ' . . ■
disadvantageous to the prcducer of fish; and tha Fishery .industry r/ould
gain sulDstantially from the success of. efforts -to -iron out the long-time
fluctua.tions in the supply of livestock and in the price of meat,.
This presupposes a prograjn of economic coordination .much "broader
than TTOuld he possible in connection with a code or a group of codes for^
any one fndustry. Short .of such a program, ho^jever, it is douhtful
whether^ anything can he done to improve the prices received hy fisher-
men, unless the relative preference of =the American consumer for fish
in comparison with meat ca.n he modified. Something has alreadj"- heeh
said as to the possihilities in this latter direction, ,.
THE S?IBAD.,.BBTV/EB]J EHICES TO-PaOBUCEHS AIID TO COKSTOiEES, ,
During the existence of the fishery codes the pfohlems raised hy
the spread "between the prices received "by primary producers and those
paid "by the consumer "became >a matter of cohcern to the Consumers' Ad-
visory Board, There was s. tendency to feel that these spreads-, which
had admittedly heen. suhstantial, i:.rplied profiteering on the part of
the preparing, and distributing tra.de s,
' ' ■' ■ ' ' ' ''" .
The perishability ef fishery products, however, with the. intense-
competition resulting from the large number of enterprises of small
average size engaged in these trades, creates a situation so unfavor-
able to monopolistic or profiteering ta,ctics as to justify skepticism
with regard to. any such hypothesis, ViTith the evidence at. present
avails.ble' the controversy cannot be settled conclusively; but the fol— .
lov;ing summary of a paper prepared 'hj an official of one of the large
New tork whole sali-ng companies (*) t"hrows some light on .3,t, -
THE PaiCS'SPEEAD IH AN ILLUSTMTIYE CASE ..,....---
This paper traces a shipment of fish caught in Florida and distri-
buted through the Uew York wholesale -market, for which the fishermsji
received four cents per pound, \7hile the ultimate consumer paid about
25 cents. The following figures reffer to a standard barrel of 200
pounds.
For such a barrel the wholesaler in Florida paid the fisherman
$8,00, He was obliged to malce an allowance of five per cent for
shrinkage in weight while the. fish were in transit to New York, The
barrel and the ice for packing tiie' shipment cost hiin $1,50, the la,bor
and overhead, charges, a.ssuraing a normal • volume of business, $1,00, and
the trucking 25 cents. The cost of. these fish at the time of shipment
from Florida, consequentljr, was a,pproximately $11,15,
The express charge from Florida, to Jersey City wa,s approximatel;'"
$3,00 per barrel, and the cost of trucking in the New York City area
40 cents more. For the New Yorlo wholesaler to brea,k even, with his
customary margin of 12-'; per cent', he must have sold this barrel of fish
for $16,25 to $16,50, or rather more than twice its original value to, '
the fisherman,
(*) Stanley de J, Osborne, Atlantic Coast Fisheries Company, New York
City,
9581
-39-
A retailer who paid the price just mentioned for this "barrel, and
who sold an average of a thousands pounds of fish per xtee'k, concentra-
ted mainly in two of the seven days, would "be obliged, according to this
paper, to raise his purchase price 20 per cent, in order to net two per
cent on his fish husiness. This would bring the price of the "barrel up
to approximately $49 for the 200 pounds, or 24-1: cents per pound. These
figures, moreover, assume that, the, fish in question were weighed for
sale to the consuner "before cleaning, and that there was no loss from
spoilage.
It is not contended that these illustrative figures finally settle
the pro"blem of price spreads in the fishery trades. The informant from
whom the data cited were o'btained, however, is "believed to "be relia'ble,
and the data are pro"ba"bly quite, representative of conditions in an im-
portant section of the Industry,
SSLATIVE A3SMGE OF MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES
The relatively small size of the typical enterprise in the Fishery
Industry would in any case tend greatly to reduce the likelihood of
monopolistic practices. In New York, Boston, Pensacola, Seattle, San
Francisco and a fevi other places the small groups of comparatively large
wholesale concerns account for su"bstantial proportions of the total
volume of "business, and especially of the sales outside the immediate
localities. The relative importance of these larger concerns, more-
over, is enhanced "by the fact that a considerable proportion of the
smaller ones tend to come and go, "because of their financial insta"bil-
ity.
Before the institution of the l\r,E.A, , however, these larger whole-
sale concerns do not seem, as a matter of fact, to have "been in a posi-
tion to monopolize "business or to injure their smaller competitors "by
means that could "be descri"bed as illegal or improper. They were un-
popular vi/ith the fishermen; "but this appears to have "been chiefly "be-
cause they were the most prominent customers of the latter, and tended
therefore to "be held responsi'ble for the deflation in prices.
Almost inevita'bly the larger wholesalers took a prominent part as
proponents of the fishery codes. In the case of the National Code this
fact, as will "be more fully explained, had unfortunate effects. There
were, moreover, a fev/ instances in which these groups, more or less
deli"berately, took advantage of their position as proponents of codes
to offer provisions apparently designed to protect themselves from the
competition of small enterprises. The most important case of the sort
came up in connection with the price control provisions of the proposed..
Supplementary Code for the Southeast preparing and Wholesaling Industi-y,
The larger wholesalers with established ]places of business in Pensa,cola
and other cities were unquestionably desirous of restricting the activi-
ties of the small truck distributors of that area. It was the effort to
do this, primarilj'-, that so delayed, the writing of the Code referred to,
that it had not been approved at the time of the Schechter decision.
The competition of the small truck jobbers, who biiy directly from
fishermen and distribute from their own vehicles to inland wholesalers,
9581
■ , "40-
retailers or customers, sometimes -over radii of several hmidred miles,
has xmquestn.ona'bly caused great '.difficiiltj;^ f-fii*' fee esta'blished old-line
wholesalers in a niimljer of fishing ports*- The provisions designed to
cAxrh this competition plainly had a monopolistic tendency and were such
as the Administration could -not approve „
Prom the standpoint of the old^line dealers, however,' the provi-"
sions were of a defensive character: the importance attached to them
reinforces strongly the impression thac under normal conditions such
groups of large concerns had not "been in a position even to maintain
their traditional share of the husinessof their areas,' to say nothing
of increasing it, "by monopolistic ^practices of the ordinary sort.
9581
■■CIIAPTSl lY
ESTABLISIU.IEiiTS AIZ) S1ITIIKPIIIS3S
THE TGSSEL, 30AT AID SHOIiB PISHZPIIIS .»
In disciissi-ng the n'OJi'ber and charr,cter of the enterprises conposing
the fishery industr;r, and the mraorr of persons engaged in it and their
corapensation, it is necessary to trJre accbimt of a distinction custonar-
ily dravm hetr/een the -vessel, the ooat and the shore .fisheries. The dif-
ference "between a vessel and- a "boat is one of size - the former heing
docLTJiented craft of five net tons capacity or more, nhile the latter are
■umdocirnented craft of less than five tons capacity. The distinction "be-
tween the vessel and the "boat fisheries lies in the scale on which they
operate, while the shore fisheries, which work without "boats or use then
only incidentally, are on a, still smaller scale. The three classifica-
tions of course fade into one another; yet the distinction is practical
and convenient.
Tlie nearest eq\ii valient of an "esta"blislinent " in the fishing industry'-
proper is an individual vessel or ""ooat vrith its gear, or in the case of
the shore fisheries an individual operator with his gear or im"olements.
THE MI3M 01 PISHIHG- "VESSELS
The num"'Der of fishing vessels in operation in 1929 was reported "bjr the
Bureau of Fisheries as 4,367. In 1933 it had fallen to a"bout 3,650, l)ut
in 1934 had proba'bly risen again to 4,000 or thereo,"bout s. There has "been
a considera"ble decline in the nurnher of these vessels since 1908, when it
stood at 5,148. The mmi"ber on the Pacific coast and on the Great Lakes
has risen su"bstantially ; hut this has only partly offset an e::tensive de-
crease on the Atlantic and Crvlf coasts.
Uore thpji half this latter decline is accounted for "by the falling
off in the production of oysters, of which more will "be said later on.
The remainder is due chiefljr to the suhstitiition of motor propelled for
sailing vessels. Ilotor vessels, "being a"ble to mal:e much- qnoicker ojid more
n-umerous trips, can ca.rr;;'- ice, and therefore "bring in fish which formerly
had to "be salted as soon as they were caught. The increase in the propor-
tion landed fresh has in its t-'orn forced a concentration of the business
in the larger ports, which alone have the facilities for handling these
verj^ perisha"ble products on a large scale. All these conditions have fav-
ored the carrying on of the operations of the Industry "by a smaller nimher
of more efficient units.
THE 0Ti":3RSHIP OP EISHIMG iraSSELS
A large majority of all fishing vessels are owned singly by individ-
uals or partnership^, and in the co.se of 90 per cent of these the owner or
one of the owners is also the ce-ptcdn. Of the vessels reported on for the
purposes of the study of fishermen's .earnings, which was made in connec-
tion with the codes njider discussion, about 30 per cent were ovmed in fleets
of two or more. The corresponding proportion for all fishing vessels,
however, is certainly smaller - probably around 20 per cent. About 28 per
cent of all fishing vessels are orrned 'by corporations; b\it if Alaska
9581
■"42-
is 3::cl\ided the -oroT^ortion foJJ-s to 20 por cent. The vessels ormed in
fleets .'^.re of coiurse largely the sane as thoce o\-m.ed 07 corporations,
THE LIZE All) AGE OF ?ISHI:T& ^/^^SSELS
The a.'^e of fishing vessels in use runs up to 60 years or even more.
■The average age, horrever, is only al)OLit 15 years, DJid. the average life
ahout 20. There is alijays a proportion of old and relatively -onseaworthjr
vessels in existence; and for this reason it is normal for 12 or 13 per
cent of the vessels registered at a giveii tine to "be idle. At the worst
stage of the depression, however, the proportion of idle vessels was proh-
ahly not lass than' 25 per cent,
TEE ITUIfflER AID OUlIEaSHIP OP PISHIIiq BOATS
The nriKher of ^ fishing boats is ver^' niich larger than the n-onber of
vessels. In recent years it has heen in the neighhorhood of 70,000.
Since the avere.ge vessel, however, is 10 or 12 tines as efficient as the
average "boat, the relative importance of the "boat fisheriesi'frora the
standpoint of their production is "by no means as great as these figures
night seem to inply. In 1933 the vessel fis-heries accounted for about
43 per cent of the total valae landed; and this proportion seems to have
changed very little over the last 25 or 30 years. The n-umher of fishing
boats in use has fallen off dm-ing this period, b\it not as nuch as the
number of vessels.
At the tine of writing no fig-ores are available with respect .to the
ownership of 'fishing boats, their age, their nornal life, or the propor-
tion of idle craft. It can, however, be asserted safely that the propor-
tion of boats owned in fleets of two or mgre is substantially b elow the
20 per cent aropl^ying in the case of vessels. T}.ie ownership of boe.ts "bj
corporations is confined to cases where they are owned on the side by
wholesaling or processing concerns.
THE SIZE 0? EISHIITG EITTEEPSISZS ' '
The foregoing statenents are enough to indicate that the enterprises
operating 30 to 90 per cent of all fishing craft are small. Even in 1929,
according to computations based on Bureau of Fisheries datr., the average
gross operating reveraie .per vessel or boat failed to reach $3,000 in any
area. In tlie Chesapeake and the South Atlantic rhd G-'olf sto.tes, even in
that year of great economic "activity and rel^atively high prices, the value
of the catch of an average vessel was only a little over $800. In 1933
the average did not reach $2,000 for any area,' and for the Chesapealce
states it sanlc below $400,
Tlie average gross operating revenue of fishing vessels is of course
nuch larger than that of vessels and bofts ta]':en together. Te^ the data
obtained in connection with the il.Bu.A. study of fishermen's earnings show-
ed, even in the case of Hew England and of California, where the propor-
tions of large vessels are highest, en average output per reporting vessel
in 1933 of less than $25,000. The avei'age tonnage of these vessels, more-
over, was above the general average for the areas mentioned.
9581
. -43-
TalDle IS slions the dis trio lit ion of ths value of the fishery products
landed in 1933 "b;- individual firns uhich suhriitted reports in connection
with the aoove mentioned study. This tahle includes funs'" two-thirds of
all the concerns, other than salmon canning companies in Alaska, nhich
own fleets of five or more fishing vessels. The dollar volume reported "by
some of these is of course large in comparison v'ith that of the hulk of
fishing enterprises; hut the proportion of the totei.1 .for the Industry for
which they account is comparatively sns.ll. Table IX includes only con-
cerns ovming fleets of two or more vessels, A considerahle nimber of
vessels owned singly had catches in 1933 valued at nore than $50,000.
The highest such value reported in connection with the studj"-, however,
was ujider $80,000.
WHOLESilLIlTC- AirO FEOCSSSIIIG- ESTABLISH.iZL^TTS
Tahle X sho\7s the nijmhers of wholesaling and processing establish-
ments reported in connection v;ith the surveys of the Bureau of Fisheries
for 1929, 1931 and 1933, and also the nijjnher of establishments engaged in
the conning and preserving of fish- and shellfish, as shovm by the Censiises
of ilanufact risers for the same 3'-ears, The 6.ifferences between these two
sets of figures, which s.re shown in the third column represent rotighly the
number of establisliments engaged in the wholesaling of fresh and frozen
fish, and in the minor forms of processing v;hich have been classified for
present p"arposes as preparing. These latter figures, howeyer, are some-
what too small, since the Biu-eau of Fisheries has not covered wholesaling
establisliments located at inland points vrhere no actual fishing OTjerations
are carried on.
TABLE IX
BISTrJBUTIOlT OF 15 COLIPAIIIES OPEBATDTG THE LARGEST FISHIHG
lilLEETS, BY VALUE OF CATCH, 1933
Value of Catch llumber of Comioanies
Total 15
$750,000 to $1,000,000 1
500,000 to 750,000
250,000 to 500,000 - 3
100,000 to 250,000 3
. 50,000 to 100,000 8
Source: Q,u.estionnaire data collected b"" the Research and Plsiming
Division, ilELA..
9581
-44-
TABLE :;
iraiiBUR OF ESTASLISmvISKTS III THE riSHISY miOLESALIlia AllD PROCESSING
IllDUSTRIES, 1929, 1931 AIHD 1933
Year
All trnolGsaling
and Processing
Canning and
Preservin," a/
Preparing and
■Wholesaling ^/
1933
c/
1931
2,992
1929
2,922
488
530
610
c/
2,462
2,312
Source: _i"urean of Eislieries, -L'ishery Irid''j-s tries of the United States,
1930, p. M?-^ 1932. p. 175. Census of liaii-uf actm-es. 1929. Vol.
I, p. 22; 1931, "Suianar;'- for States and Industries, " p . 8; 1933,
"Sunnar-^ "by Industries, " p. 4.
a/ In the case of the estalilishnents in the United States proper
these products valued at less than $5,000 for the jec^r are not
included. In the case of Alaska all estahlishnents sxe includ-
ed,
h/ Pi;'<;ures obtained Ivf svhtracting Canning and Preserving estahlish-
iiients from All Uliolesaling and Processing esto-hlishraents,
c_/ Data not availaTDle for the South Atlantic and C-olf, Great Lalces,
and Ilississippi River areas.
: / . TABLE ]:i ■
DISTRIEUTIOIT OE PiSH CA17r IIJG AilL PEiESE-IVIilG SSTABLISEISETS III THE UIJITED
STATES PP-OPER, AGCOlffilllG TO TnEllL VALUE OE PEODUCT, 1929 a/
Value of Product
ITimlier of Estahlislimsnts
Total
$2,500,000 to $4,999,999
1,000,000 to 2,499,999
500,000 to 999,999
250,000 to 499,999
100,000 to 249,999
50,000 to 99,999
20,000 to 49,999
5,000 to 19,999
348
4
13
22
38
89
62
66
54
Source: Census of Manufactxires. 1929. Vol. I, p. 74.
a/ Esta"blishinents whose "products were valued at less
than $5,000 in 1929 not incliided.
9581
-45-
A limited niun'ber of canning' concerns, especially'" in the Canned
Salmon Industry, and a very few large wholesaling companies operate more
than or.e establishment in different places. The proportion of such cases,
however, is so small -that- the numbers of establishments given ahove are
nearly the same as the nupihers of firms engaged in the wholesaling and
processing divisions of the . Industry.
Tahle XI shoT/s the .distrihution of fish and shellfish canning and
preserving establishments in the United States proper hy size, as repre~
sented "by the value of the product in 1929. These are the most recent
figures available. They are s-'officient to indicate the general situation,
though the fact that each of the half dozen biggest salmon canning
companies operates several establishments results in an •onder-representa-
tion of the size of the largest concerns in that particular branch of the
Industry.
There are no corresponding data to show the size of the enterprises
in the wholesaling and preparing trades. Table XII, however, gives
similar figures for a group of wholesale concerns in Hew York City in
1930 and 1933, This grotip accounts for about 80 per cent of the whole-
sale volume of the New York metropolitan area, and includes all the
larger units. In no other center of the Industr''' e:ccept Boston would the
proportion of enterprises in the higher ■ ranges be as large as it is here.
'-' " ■ ■ ■ >
These data, while incomplete, are sufficient to indicate the
small size of the mass of enterprises in the wholesaling and processing
divisions of the Fishery Industry, and the very moderate proportion
accounted for by the relatively large concerns.
TABLE ZII
DISTRIBUTION OF THE PHIKGIPAL ^/ SALT WATER PREPARING-
IND WHOLESALING Pi:;i/iS IN NEW YORIC CITY,
ACCORDING TO TIISIR GROSS SALES, 1930 AND 1935
Number of Finns
Gross Sales ' • 1933 1930
Total 28 21
$500,000 and over 4 9
400,000 to 499,999 2 6
300,000 to 329,999 '41
200,000 to 299,999 ' 9-... 4
100,000 to 199,999 5 1
Under 100,000 4
Source: Unpublished data compiled by Stanlejr de J.
Osborne, Atl-antic Coast Fisheries Company,
New York City,
a/ IncltLdes the 28 largest companies in the
New York City salt water wholesale market
in 1933, and the 21 largest in 1930.
9581
-46-
CHAPTEE V
PERSOm.^SL AKD VOLUlvIE OF EMPLOYMENT
FBRSOMEL OP TIIS PHIMABY FRODUCIM& IIIDUSTRY
The total numlier of persons engaged in th'e fisheries proper, .either-
as entrepreneiars or as employees, has "been in recent years between
115,000 and 125,000. Table .XIII shows the distribution of this personnel
by area for 1933 and 1929, with comparatiye figures for 1908. Over the
last 25 or 30 years the number has declined by 16 or 17 per cent. Prom
1929 to 1933, however - that- is, throughout the downward phase of the
depression - the decline was, only about seven per cent. At the time the
N.a.A. was established, the problem of outright unemployment was evident-
ly, in the case of fishermen, of rather minor iniportance.
Approximately 22 per >cent of the personnel of the primary producing
industry are engaged in the vessel, about 60 per cent in the boat, and
18 per cent in the shore fisheries.
The proportion of entrepreneurs or independent' operators among,,'
fishermen is relatively large - approximately 15 per cent in the vessel
fisheries, 74 per cent in the boat and shore fisheries, and 61 per cent
in the primary producing industry as a whole. (*) Of the latter figure
about one-third are employers of others, while two-thirds fish with boats
or gear operated by single persons or by small groups of partners. This
high proportion of small entrepreneurs in the Industry has an important
effect on the psychology of its personnel, and tended strongly to condi-
tion their reaction to the original H.R.A. program.
TABLE XIII
KUl^ffiER OP PERSOITS EHGAGED IN TEE FISHERIES PROPER'
BY AREA, 1908, 1929 AKD 1953 a/
Area 1933 1929 1908
Total, U.S. and Alaska
118,069
126,730
141,499
Uew England
17,073
17,150
r
Mi(iri1e Atlantic
8,574
10,491
\ 103,479
Che s ape alee
20,142
18,470
South Atlantic and
G-ulf
22,127
W
26,643
Great Lalces
6,940
V
7,159
8,094
Pacific
18,673
19,992
13,380
Mississippi River
15,884
9J
15,884
,c/
11,570
Alaska
8,656
10,921
4,976
Source: Bureau of Census, Fisheries of the United States, 19C8, pp. 14 and
Bureau of Fisheries, Fishery industries of the United States,
1930. p. 134; 1934, p. 99.
a/ Exclusive of a relatively small number working on transporting
vessels,
b/ Estimated by the author.
c/ 1931 figure. The change from 1929 to 1933 was probably not
significant. '
* See footnote on following page.
9581
-47-
EBGULAa Aim CASUAL FISHEBIvffilT
Por the Atlantic and G-ulf coasts and the Great Lakes there are
Btireau of Fisheries figures segregating the classes of regular ajid of
casual fishermen, the latter "being those who derive the major portion of
their incomes from occupations other than fishing. In these areas taken
together ahout one-third of all boat and shore fishermen fall in the
casual class. In New England and in the Middle Atlantic area this pro-
portion increased somewhat during the depression, apparently as a result
of unemployed persons taking to part-time fishing as a means of obtaining
a small income in default of ajiything better. In the Chesapeake area and
on the South Atlantic and G-ulf coasts, however, the proportion varied
little from 1929 to 1933.
liore than half of all the casual fishermen reported are in the
Chesapeal^e area and in the South, where the fact that some important fish-
eries are most active in the winter makes it possible to combine fishing
with the work of small farmers or of farm laborers. There are no data
for the numbers of regular and casual fishermen on the Pacific coast; but
in the country at large the latter class probably constitutes somewhat
less than one-third of the boat and shore personnel.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PBHSOmiSL 0^ THE FISHERIES
The personnel of the fisheries proper is characterized by a high
average age and a low turnover. Fishermen constitute an essentially con-
servative class, which sticks to its own mode of living, to its own
enterprises and to its own social groups. There has been little tendency,
during the depression, to migrate for the purpose of obtaining additional
or substitute employment. These men had been, as a class, fairly well
adjusted to programs of work that kept them busy at their own calling
most of the year; and when market conditions cut down heavily the periods
during which it paid them to engage in fishing other employment also be-
came hard to obtain.
The working personnel of the fisheries proper is practically all
male. In New England, in the northern Middle Atlantic states and on the
Great Lalces it is all white and predominantly of long settled Anglo-Saxon
stock. The same is largely true in the South, though in some branches
there are considerable numbers of negroes. On the Pacific coast the
fishermen are mainly of immigrant nationalities - Norwegians and Finns
in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, and Italians, Yugoslavs, Portuguese
and Japanese in California.
THE SIZE OF FISHING CEEWS
The maximum crew of a fishing vessel consists of about 40 men.
Crews in excess of 30 are very exceptional, and those exceeding 20 are
(*) These percentages are based on the assumption that all fishermen who
are compensated by shares, but who do not own their craft and are not
consulted regarding the sale of the catch, are employees. The point,
which is open to argument, is further discussed in Chapter VII.
9581
-48-
confinecl to three or four large fisheries. The average vessel creT/ con-
sists of seven or eight men, while the average to a toat is only one and
a half. Of the personnel of the "boat fishei^ies in. 1933 about 51 'per cent
operated one-man "boats, atout 41 p<ir cent two-man "boats, and only eight
per cent "boats with crews of three or more. . . ,
THE PRODUCTIVITY OP FISHIITG LABOH
The gross output per man of the fisheries pi-oper is such as. to put .
a low naximuj'j limit on the earnings of the mass of the personnel.-. In
1929 this gross average per man failed to reach $1,700 for the year in aaiy
part of the country. For the Great Lalces it was under $ 1,000, for the
Chesapealce area a little over $600, and for the South .Atlantic and G-ulf
area a"bout $550. In 1933 a gross average of $1,000 per- man was. slightly
exceeded in Alaska only. For the South Atlaaitic and Gulf area the cor— ■ ■
responding figure was under $400,' and for' the Chesapeake area only a"bout
$250. Even in the case of the relatively large vessels covered "by the
recent stud;?- of fishermen's earnings the gross output per man in 19,33 did
not rea.ch $2,400 for any area. In the Great Lalces it was .only $1,200 and .
in the Sou.th $550. '
Over the last 25 or 30' years, however, a decrease of 16 or 17 per
cent in the numher of persons engaged in the fisheries has accompanied an
increase of 40 or 45 per cent in "both the quantity and the value of the
catch. Evidently, therefore, there has "been a su"bstantial improvement in
the productivity of fishing la'bor during the past generation.
PERIODS OF ACTIVE ElffLOYLrEM IM THE FISHERIES
In normal years regular vessel fishermen a,re actively engaged in
fishing, on an average, for a'bout 10' months of the year. In the case of
regular "boat fishermen the normal period of employment is shorter - per— .
haps six to eight months. In a depression year like 1933 vessel fishermen
were not active, on an average, for more .than seven- or eight months, and
the employment of "boat fishermen was curtailed at least proportionately.. .
Little is known with regard to the periods of employment of casual fishery
men, "but they are as a rule shorter than those just indicated.
IMFREQ.UEI^TCY OF SUPPLEIvIENTARY EMPLGYMMT OR EARIJIINGS .:■.■ ■■ -
The time of regular fishermen when they are not engaged in fishing
is in some degree talcen up with the overhauling of" their craft and gear.
At present no systematic information is availa'ble as., to the extent
which such men supplement their money earnings from their main occupation
hy other emplojnnents. Such evid.ence as there, is, however, indicates that
siipplementary earnings of the kind amount to very little. Regular fisher- .
men are accustomed to highly specialized work,' which tends to unfit them
for most other occupations. The strenuousness of much of their la'bor
while actually fishing hreeds a tendencj?" to rela.xation, which might some-
times "be called loafing, daring the off season. In the northern half of
the United States the active sea„son in most of the fisheries tends to
collide with that in man.uf acturing industry and in agriculture. The
casual, fishermen in that part of tiie country find their chief supplementary
eiirplojT.ient in the summer resort and tourist trades.
9581
-49-
Tlie seasonal fluctuation in the to
ducing industry which results from this
ment throughout the year is reduced by
fall, to a considerable extent, at diff
fisheries and sections of the country,
net seasonaJity, which was prepared by
on the basis of suggestions made by the
method was used which may perhaps cause
seasonal movement somewhat. Probably,
the situation.
tal personnel of the primary pro-
lack' of continuous active employ-
the fact that the active seasons
erent times in the various <,
Table XIV shows an index of this
the American Federation of Labor,
Fisheries Unit. A simplified
the index to exaggerate the
however, it gives a fair idea of
EIIPLOYI.EMT II-I THE WHOLESALING- AJ'ID FROCESSIKG lEDUSTRIES
No data exist for the volume of employment in the wholesaling and
processing divisions of the Fishery Industry prior to 1929, except those
of the Census of Manufactures. The latter, which are averages for the
year, relate to the canning and preserving industries only. 'They are
shown in Table XV for the census years from 1899 to 1933. With some allow-
ance for the effect of the economic cycle this volume of employment may
be regarded as having been extraordinarily stable over the period of 34
years.
■ TABLE XIV ■
ESTIliATED MOIOTHLY VARIATIOI IN THE imrBEH OF PSESOKS ENG-AGEI)
IN THE FISHERIES PROPER, 1933
(Average of 12 Months - 100)
Month
Index
Month
Index
Number
Number
JsJiuary
71.0
. Jioly
110.5
February
76.0
August ,
132.5
March
76.5
September
129.5 ■
April
86.5
October
.121.0
May
111.5
November
94.5
June
120.0
December
70.5
Source: Unpublished index prepared by the American
Federation of Labor.
9581
r50-:
TABLE XV
EIviPLOYIiEM IN PISH CAKt^IHG AKD PEESERVIKG
"ESTABLISffliiElTTS IN THE UNITED STATES PROPEH,
1890 - 1933 a/
Year
Wage
Earners
Salaried
Eraploj'-ee's b/
Total
1933
9,993
1931
8,591
1929
. 13,612 ■ ■ .
1927
12,650
1925 ■•
10,530 .
1923 .■
• 9 , 144
1921
■ 7,946 •
1919
12,437
1914
11,155
1909.
9,926
1904
: •■ 8,445
1899
12,593
So-orce:
Census of luamrfactures.
707
10,700
0/
1,158
14,770
1,194
13,844
1,109
11,639
1,359
10,503
910
8,856
1,373
13,810
1,123
12,279
901
10,827
796
9,241
537
13,185
a/ Data for establishments with products valued at less
than $5,000 for the year are included in, 191? and prior
years, but not in 1921 and subsequent years.
h/ Salaried officers of corporations, are not included in
the 1933 figures, . but are included in the figures for
other yeai's.
c/ Not available.
The existing data for employment in the preparing and wholesaling
trades in 1929. are incomplete. In the Bureau of Fisheries' figures for
that year there was confusion between the gross total employment and the
average for tne'.year or season. The published figures apparently repre-
sented neither one nor the other, but something between. In the returns
for 1930, 1931. and 1933 this defect was remedied. (*) The result is that
the 1929 data are not comparable with the later ones. The true total
for the earlier year is not known, but there certainly was not the in-
crease from 1929 to 1931 which appears on the face of the published
figures.
These Bureau of Fisheries data are shown in Table SVI. They of
course include the employment in the canning and preserving industries
which were shown in Table XV. The fact that the figures both for 1929
(*) The returns for these later years are meant to be averages for the
active season, but are probably, in practice, nearer the gross total,
for the seasonal plateau.
9581
-51-
and 1933 were incomplete, though for different reasons, makes it impossihle
to he certain as to the extent to vvhich the whole volume of wholesaling
and processing employment fell off during the depression. It would appear,
however, that the decline was very moderate.
TA2L3 XVI
MJI^EBER OF PERSONS ElIGAGED III Ti^] ?ISffiilEY PH0CE3SIKG
AMD WI-IGLESALIIG IIIDU3TEIES, EY AREA,
1929, 1931 and 1933 a/
1933
1931
Area
19S9 h/
Processing Processing
and and
Fnolesaling Wliolesaling
Processing
Processing Wholesaling and
Wholesaling
Total, U.S.
and Alaska
—
71,912
42,440
21,575
64,015
Kew England
9,177
10,273
7,872
3,995
11,867
Middle Atlantic
5,631
4,989
815
3,747
4,562
Che sap e alee
11,596
12,333
1,459
6,498
7,957
South Atlantic
and Gulf
c/
13,635
4,908
3,394
8,302
Pacific
11,993
11 , 651
10,304
1,373
11,677
Great Lalces
c/
2,202
253
1,352
1,605
Mississippi
River
cj
4,834
183
A/
1,216
i/
1,399 d/
Alaska
11,756
11,995
16,646
ey
16,645
Source: Bureau
of Fisheries
.. 142; 1932,
,. Fisher^'-
Iniur-trie
;s of
the United
States,
1930, V
p. 175; 2
.954, V. 110.
a/ Includes proprietors, salai'iec einkiloj^'ees and iTage earners. Wage
earners in 1931 and 1933 v-ere taken approximately at the seasonal
plateau.
h/ Incomplete, though the precise hasis of the figures is unlcnown.
The true total in 1929 was certainly ahove that for 1931.
c/ Not available .
d/ 1922 figures.
ej Wholesaling as a separate business is negligible in Alaska.
SEASONALITY OP EMPL0Yi\ffilS
For the jears 1930, 1931 and 1933 the Bureau of Fisheries' publica-
tions, in addition to the figures in Table XVI, show the average eniploy-
ment for the year. For the country at large this latter figure is just
about, half the eraplojonent at the seasonal plateau.. The indications are
that T/orkers in these industries are eiiiployed, on an average, about half
the year. A high seasonality of employment is normal in most cajining
9581
-52-
indiistries. The fact that the average seasonality is so extreme in the
present case, however, is largely due to the short season of the Salmon
canneries in Alaska. For most other "branches of the wholesaling and
processing divisions the average period of eniployment is more than half
the year.
In the preparing and wholesaling trades the seasonality of employ-
ment is less pronoimced than in the canning ind\istries. Most of them
have a nucleus of workers employed the year round, together with a larg-
er hodj whose work is seasonal. Oyster shuckers and crah meat pickers
are tj'ipical of the latter class.
The Presh O^^ster Industry is the only one of these wholesaling and
preparing trades for which exa.ct data exist on the seasonality of
eniplojTnent . These figures are shown in Tahle XVII They are for 1933
only, hut are telieved to he fairly tjTpical.
TISLE XVII
MOIITHLY VJmiATIOK IN EI^ffLOYMElOT IK THE PHSSH OYSTER
IHDUSTRY, BY AEEA, 1933
(Average of 12 Months - 100)
Ifew England.,
Hew York and
Chesapeake
Southern
Pacific
United
Month
Uew Jersey
Bay
States
Coast
States
January
139.4
161.4
151.2
112.9
144.2
ITehrtiaxy
132.5
137.6
150.1
105.7
133.8
March
113.9
■ 104.8- '■
130.1
■ 100.4
112.6
April .
85.5
44.1
52.8
112.9
73.9
May
63.3
8.3
22.3
91.4
46.7
June
53.7
8.3 ■
24.6
78.9
40.8
July
49.6
6. 6
24.6
50.9
36.5
Aug-ust
35.5
14.3
21.1
60.9
30.6
SepterJoer ■
100.5
66.1
64.5
107.5
88.0
Octoher
138.3
185,2
154.7
112.9
150.0
Kovenher
149.5
229.3
195.8
130.8
173.7
Decenher
137.2
234.1
207.5
125.4
169.3
Source;
Q,uestionnaire data
reported hy 54
establishments and
contained
in
E.R.A. Research
and Planning Division re;
port: Survey of
Enployment, Wages and
Hours in the Fresh Oy
ster Industry, pre-
pared hy John R. Arnold.
TOTALPERSOKHEL OF THE FISHERY IlIDUSTRY
When the figures cited in the present chapter are summed up, they
show the total numher of persons engaged in the Fishery Industry in 1929
to have heen ahout 191,000, and in 1933 ahout 188,500. As already point-
ed out the 1929 figure is incomplete, and the true total for that year
9581
was probs.tly 'between 200,000 sxid r;10,00p. In any case, however, the
decline over the fo'or years was relatively moderate.
It has already "been pointed out tliat onljr 40 per cent of the per-
sons engaged in the primary producin,';; industry are employees even in a
qualified sense. The figures which have been given for erraloyment in
the preparing and wholesaling trades also include \7orking entrepreneurs,
but the proportion of the latter is only tln-ee , to. f ive per cent. Of
the 200,000 to 210,000 persons' engaged in the S'ishery. Industry in 1929
approximately or 61 per cent, were ejrployecti in spne -r^ense of the word,
while 79,000 were entrepreneurs, mostly o:n. a very small scale.
9581
-54-
CHAPTEH VI
HOimS OP LifflOR
HOURS IH THE PRIIIABY raODUCING- IKDU5TRY
In view of the large proportion of individual entrepreneurs in the
fisheries proper and the small decrease in the total personnel during the
depression, the question of restricting working hours with a view to
spreading enrplojinent in this division of the Industry never caine up for
very serious discussion. The hours of fishermen, of course, are irregula.r
and at times long; liut these conditions are universally accepted as in-
herent in the joh. The income of most fishermen was so heavily cut during
the depression that no considerahle numher of them would have been
inclined to run the risk of incurring additional loss hy cutting down
their v/orking time.
HOURS IF THE PROCESS IITG AIID THOLESALIITG IHDUSTRIES
Hours of laloor in the wholesaling and processing divisions of the
Fishery Industry did not, like those in the fisheries proper, escape
restriction under the codes; hut their irregularity has "been such a,s to
defy condensed, statistical t reatment .
Hours In The Canning Industries
In most of the canning industries there is at once a seasonal rise
and fall in working hours, due to the fact that the raw material is most
ahitndant during the middle of the season, and an irregularity from week
to v/eek aiid from day to. day, due to short time fluctuations in the supply.
This latter state of affairs is rather less marked in the case of
salmon cajining, hecause of the shortness and the concentration of the
active season. In the California Sardine Industry, ho\?ever, the short
time irregularity is increased "by the fact that the fishing is restrict-
ed to moonless nights, the fishermen heing dependent on to seeing their
prey "by its phosphorescence under a dark sky. The raw material of the
Tuna Canning Industry is in large part caught at long distances from the
southern California ports where the canneries are situated, and the
arrival of the vessels is inevitably irregular. These are merely saiiples
of the conditions that exist.
Hours In The PreToaring And Wholesaling Trades
In the case of the preparing and wholesaling trades the situation
is somewhat different. Here there is a decided weekly fluctuation in the
volume of products handled, with the peal^ on Thursday and the low point
on Saturdaj-^ or Monday. In the large eastern wholesaling centers, more-
over, there are special peaks during Lent and at the time of certain
Jewish holidays; and other irregularities result from random fluctuations
in the landings of the products handled.
In addition to the variations from time to time within each "branch
of the Industry, the average hours per week and the proportions of long
weeks and days vary greatly from one "branch to another.
9581
"55-
AVERAGE HOUSS TS TEE 'fflOLESALIITC- THADES
Tatle XVIII summarises the average working hours before the institu-
tion of the I.E. A. in 1933, in the oreo-.ring and wholesaling trades for
which such information could De obtainedo Averages, however, in cases
like these, give a very inadequate notion of the prohlen involved in the
attempt to restrict' hours x'rith a view to spreading employment, ', '
In the case of the Canned Salmon, the California Sardine and the , .
Fresh- Oyster Industries, some detailed fi;T..>.res \;ere obtained on pre-code .
working hours. These- three, therefore, my he taken as tjrpical of the
situation under highly varying conditions.
■ HOURS IH THE CAIIIOD ' SALIIOH lEDUSTEY
The Canned Salmon Industry has a short .and concentrated season, with
only about 12 i^eeks of actual canning operations, llearly half the shore
workers in Alaska, which produces 80 per cent of the pack, are. brought
up from the United States by the canning companies each season. In view
of this there w.as a disposition, in writing the Canned Salmon Code, .to
pdmit the contention of the Industry that it was not practicable to spread
eraployment by shortening hours. To do so r,'0uld have meant bringing to
Alaska many men who lyould, during a considei-able part of the time, have
been idle under demoralizing conditions, while they rould h.ave h.ad to be. ^
furnished continuously with quarters a.nd board. In the case of this
Industry, therefore, the sole practical question was whether the working
hours in salmon canneries were so long as to call for restriction on
general humanitarian grounds.
It ""'as admitted that very long days '--ere worked at times. In order
to find out how much this really amoujite-d to reports of the daily work-
ing hours at a number of tj^pical canneries daring the 1933 season were
obtained. These are plotted in Chart I, Each gra,ph on this chart
represents the hours in a single establishment.
These graphs suggest that working hours in the Canned Salmon Industry
did not, on the vmole, run to excessibe lengths over considerable numbers
of consecutive d.ays. The normal working day was fairly long. The workers,
however, are all men and the canning season Lasts only about three months.
In view of this, and of the fact that the restriction of hours for the
purpose of spreading employment was probably not practicable, it seemed
doubtful whether any regulation was called for, beyond some measure to
discourage excessive hours on occasional d.ays. The most feasible means of
accomplishing this pta-pose was apparently a provision for the payment of
overtime,
HOURS I1\F THE CALIFORIIA SARDIl'IE I1J)USTRY
In the case of the California Sa,rdine Industry a complete statement
of the daily working hours of individua.1 employees during the 1933-1934
ses^son was obtained from seven concerns, representing more than half the
total pack. The irregularities brought out by these st-,tenents were so
extreme as to make it impossible to condense them into a single table.
9581
-56-
The three sections of Ta"ble XIX, hoi-ever, give the 'oest idea prr^cticatle ■
of the average hours worked in these plaiits -^nd of the proportions of
long days and long v/eeks, during the season in question.
Since the original object of this analysis was to test the assertions
of memhers of the Industry that it had heen necessary to work long hours
with considerahle frequency, these tabulations were confined to male
employees. It raa;jr "be ass'-amed that the working hours of female employees
ran somewhat shorter.
Even with this tias, these tahles indicate a ra.ther small proportion
of long days and weeks. The irregularity was so great, however, as to
make it ohviously difficult to fit any formula for the restriction of
hours to the facts. The additional emplojTnent that would he created "by
any such restriction, moreover, would inevitahly he limited and undependahle,
HOURS I IT THE FESSH OYSTia IIIDUSTEY
Tahle 1\X summarizes the d-ta ohtained with regard to pre-code work-
ing hours in the Fresh Oyster Industry. A glcance at this tahle is
sufficient to show that here the difficulty lay in the shortness of the
hours alrea.dy resulting from the subnormal volume of "business of the
Industry, especially in the case of the shuckers, who constitute 50 or
60 per cent of all the emploj^ees. These shuckers are piece ^"orkers. The
numher employed was not materially reduced from 1929, to 1933;: "but their
working hours were so niich cut down "by the- contraction of the. volume, of
"business that they suffered an average decline in earnings of nearly 30
per cent, ,,
9bcl
-57-
Ta3LE XVIII
iVIILflGS PHE-CODE 'ffiEKLY HOURS GF LiSOH IjI THE FISHERY
PSEPAEIIIG Al© .JHOLESALIKG TRADES,
FIRST IIALE OF 1933
Industry
Avero°;e Hours loer Vfeek
^ f f ice
Employees
Plant
Employees
Preparing and Vrnolesaling Trades
General:
New England
Liddle Atlantic
IvIid-'.-rest
Southeast
G^llf South
northwest and Alaska
Southwest
39.9
45.9
a/
48.0
43.0
a/
45.2
46.6
56.0
57.5
60.0
49.1
55.0
Specialized:
oyster
Shuckers
Others
Blue Crat
Lotster
Sponge
Alaska Herring.
42.6
52.0
46,0
a/
43.0
22.sk/
48.9
46.0
50.5
54.0
49.1
Secondary Processing Industries
Cyster Shell Crushing
Processed or Refined Fish Oils
a/
a/
42.0
52.0
Source: Q,uestionnaire data furnished hy estatlishments and tes-
timony of industry representatires at Code hearings,
contained in E.E. A. Divison of Research pnd Planning
reports prepared oy John R. Arnold.
a/ Hot available; numher of office employees snail.
t/ Estimated on the hasis of data for shuckers' piece work
in 17 tjrpical estahlishments.
9581
CHART I
58-
AVERAGE DAILY HOURS WORKED PER EMPLOYEE IN
SELECTED SALMON CANNERIES IN ALASKA
JULY AND AUGUST 1933
' 6 n is 2i 26 31
15 — as — Z5
AUGUST
CANNERY "G"
6 II 16 21 26 31 S 10 15 20 23
JULY AUGUST
CANNERY "B"
'l 6 II 16 21 26 31 5 10 15 20 25
JULY AUGUST
CANNERY "C"
CANNERY
-J /—^
I 6 II 16 21 26 31 5 10 15 20 25
JULY AUGUST
CANNERY °J"
A^/^
I 6 II 16 21 26 31 5 10 IS 20 2S
JULY AUGUST
CANNERY "K"
AtH-
-yx^^
6 II 16 21 26 31 5 10 IS 20 25
JULY AUGUST
CANNERY "F"
1 1
-jy—^/fj\y^Vj
I 6 II 16 21 26 31 5 10 IS 20 25
JULY AUGUST
CANNERY "L
:^j:dM:?-=vM^
'I 6 I I 16 21 26 31 5 10 15 20 25
JULY AUGUST
SOURCE' RESEARCH AND PLANNING DIVISION, NRA, IN
COOPERATION WITH NATIONAL CANNERS
ASSOCIATION
NRA
DIVISION OF REVIEW
STATISTICS SECTION
NO. 454
TABLE Xn
PEE-CODE WEEKLY HOURS OF MALE EMPLOYEES IN 7 CALIFORNIA
SARDINE PLANTS, SEASON OF 1933-1934
(1) Average Hours of
Employees
in 7 Plant
s for
• eaoh Week of Season
Week Ended :
Hours per
Week
Week Ended:
Hours pe
Week
r
Week Ended: ^""'"^ P^*"
Week
Aug. 5
33.6
Oct,
. 14
22.8
Dec.
23
51.6
12
21.2
21
32.6
30
23.2
19
39.7
28
35.8
Jan.
6
28.8
26
40.4
Nov.
. 4
21.1
13
36.9
Sept. 2
29.8
11
30.3
20
30.1
9
31.8
18
37.9
27
32.7
16
34.4
25
32.1
Feb.
3
35.4
23
28.0
Deo.
. 2
23.1
10
54.4
30
23.5
9
28.3
15
40.3
Oct. 7
26.7
16
30.1
-
-
—
Weighted Average for Season, 7 Plants -
32.3
(2) Proport
ions of Employees in
Individual
Plants, by Average Weekly
Hours
Hours per Week
Plant :
Humbe
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
lOO.OjJ
100.0^
100. C^
100.0??
100.0^
100. 0?S
100. OJJ
36 and Under
50.6
31.5
68.9
60.5
69.7
41.9
73.9
36.1 to 40
4.7
—
5.9
3.3
1.6
5.8
5.2
40.1 to 44
4.2
9.6
5.4
3.3
5.3
8.1
2.1
44.1 to 48
5.6
5.5
3.6
2.0
4.5
3.2
4.2
48.1 to 54
5.6
53.5
3.2
6.6
7.6
6.4
5.2
54.1 to 60
3.3
—
3.2
16.4
5.3
6.4
2.1
60.1 to 70
2.2
—
5.0
3.3
2.5
9.7
6.3
Over 70
22.1
. — —
4.5
4.6
3.8
18.5
1.1
(3) Niimbers
of Weeks
During which the Ave
rage
Hours of
Employees
in Individual Plant
;s Exceeded
Certain Hours
Number of Weeks
Worked in
Plant Number
Weighted
Average,
Excess of:
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
7nPlants
Total Weeks in
Season
29
15
28
29
29
29
26
26.6
40 Hours
17
3
2
7
4
16
2
6.3
44 Hours
11
S
2
7
2
14
1
4.6
48 Hours
10
-
-
5
2
8
1
3.2
54 Hours
2
^
••
4
1
7
1
1.7
Source: Data supp]
.ied by seven
concerns accounting
for half the ou
tput of the California Sardine
Industry'
• Report on
contained m NRA Division of Research and Planning^ report - Supplementary
Hours and Wages in the California Sardine Processing Industry, prepared by
-SO-
TABLE :cK
Hi URS WUEKED PER ':,'EEE IIT THE FEESH OYSTER
liuDUSTRY, DECSLSrE, IS 33
Plant Employees
Hours Office Employees
per Week (Per cent of Total) Sliucke r s a/ Others
(Per cent (Per cent
of Total) of Total)
Total 100.0
10 or less 11,1
10,1 to 20
20.1 to 25
25*1 to 30
30.1 to 35 2.8
35,1 to 40 33.3
40.1 to 50^ 41.7
50.1 to 55 2.8
55,1 to 60 5,5
Over 60 2.8
Source: (Questionnaire data conta,ined in the N.R.A. Research and
Planning Division report - Survey of Employment, Wa;qes
and Hours in the Fresh Oyster Industry, prepared by
John R. Arnold,
a/ Estimated on the basis of data for shuckers' piece work
in 17 typical establishments,
b/ Due to an error in reproducing the schedule for the
collection of the data, the frequency 40.1 to 45 was
omitted.
9581
.00.0
100.0
«-
18.1
37.3
—
18.6
—
3.6
, —
3.8
3.5
32.5
19.0
4.2
38.8
^
3.4
—
15.5
1.7
-61-
CHiPTEH VII
EAEKINGS OF THE PEHSGMEL
MODES OE COMPENSATING FISHEEMEN
Of the 40 per cent of the -oersonnel of the fishing industry proper
who may "be classified in some sense as employees atout 75 per cent
receive their compensation in the form of shares in the value of the
catch. A small TDroiDortion are paid on a piece hasis and. only 20 or
25 per cent receive fixed wpges. From one-half to two-third of the
fishermen on the Great Lakes work on the latter hasis; hut with this
exception the payment of w^.ges in confined to a few fisheries operating
under somewhat special conditions. There appears to he no general
tendency for the w^ge system to supplant the share system.
THE SHARE SYSTEM : ■
m
In nearly all cases the crew share, out of which the individual
emhers of a crew working on shares are compensa-ted, is a residual
figure, "being what remains of the T5roceeds from the sale of the catch
after the current operating expense an.d the share assigned to the
vessel or hoat have heen deducted. The vessel or hoa,t share represents
the gross -orofit or gross income of the enterprise; and all overhead
expense (repairs and upkeep, insurance, taxes, current replacements of
gea,r, ajid usually the loss on trips that fail to yield any net share
for the crew) is charged against it.
In the case of share vessels the tendency has "been for the current
operating expense, the vessel share and the crew share each to represent
ahout onet?third of the value of the catch. If the crew, share falls
much ■'oelow this proportion, the men are likely to he adversely affected.
The agreements or "lays" which govern the su'bdivision of the value
of the catch of share fishing craft, and which determine the extent to
which operating expenses is charged against the vessel and the crew
jointly or against thelatter al'One, are numerous, though they can he
distrihuted among a comparatively small numher of well-defined types.
Tahle XXI gives a tentative classification of the kind, hased on the
recent U.S.A. study of fishermen's earnings. (*) .-The important lays
have changed hut little during the past generation, or even since the
Eighteenth Century. A large majority have never heen reduced to
writing; and as' a result they constitute perhaps the most informal
and at the same time the most stahle class of economic relationships
in the country.
THE ElvEPLOYEE STATUS IN THE FISHERIES . ;
The courts have long regarded fishermen who work on shares, hut
who do not participate in the sale of the catch of their craft, as
* The classification is based on data for vessels only. The extent to
which it is applicable to hoats is at present unknown,
9581
-62-
TiSLB XXI
PEIWCIPAL TYPES OF LAYS ■ OR SHifiE AGIIEEL3]1TS IN USE ON FISHING-
VESSELS IN 1933, ANE THEIR RELATIVE IMPORTANCE
Terius of Lay
Proportion of
Reporting Vessels
(per cent)
Terms of Lay
Proportion of
Reporting Vessels;
(per cent)
I. Crew shpjre a fixed percentage
of the value of the catch:
20 or 25 per cent,
50 -oer cent
Total (l)
11. Crew shajre the r'esidual item:
A-Yessel shpre a fixed per-
centage of the value of
the catch:
1.1
2o4
3.5
Under 20 per cent
1.6
20 per cent
: 6.8
25. ^er cent
4,4
30 or 33 1/3 per cent ' .
2.4
40 -oer cent
5.7
Total (II-A)
20.9
S-Vessel share a fixed per-
centage of the net stock a/
(a) Joint expense includes
replacement of lost
gear only:
Vessel share 20 per cent
(h) Joint expense inqludes
"bait only:
Vessel share 20 to 40, per
cent
(c) Joint expense 50 to
75 per cent of total
operating expense: t_/
13.8
6.3
Vessel share 25 per cent 2.2
Vessel share 50 per cent 11.4
Total (lI--B-(c')) 13.6
(d) All operating expense
Joint:
Vessel share 20 per cent or
less 1.6
Vessel share 30 or 33 l/3
per cent 9,5
Vessel share 40 per cent . 6.8
■ Vessel share 50 per cent 11.5
Total (lI-B-(d)) 29.2
Total (lI-B-(a) to (d)) 62.9
C-All operating expense Joint
ahd vessel receives a fixed
numher of shares in the net
stock: a/
One share ' 4.2
■Two Shares 1.4
Three hut less than four
shares 1.4
Four hut less than five
shares 1.9
Six or seven shares 3.8
Total (II-C) 12.7
Total, -phere vessel share
is a fixed percentage of
the net stock:a/ (II-A to
C) 96.5
Grand Total
100.0
9581
Source: N.R.A. , Division of Re-
search and Planning study
of fishermen's earnings.
a/ Value of the catch less joint
expense (i.e., operating exoense
charges to the vessel and the
crew jointly).
h/ Re guar ly includes fuel and luh-
ricants and often ice, salt, and
hait, hut not food or wages.
-63-
employees in the same sense as wage earners in a factory; and this is
also, naturally, the point of vieijr of large fleetowners. The economist,^
on the other hand, is likely to think that the dependence of share
fishermen for their compensation on a residue of the operating revenue
of the enterprises with which they T-^ork makes them -oroperly entre-
preneurs. In the case of corporation-owned vessels, the legal doctrine
is, for practical purposes, not far from the truth. But with respect to
a majority of the class it is unrealistic, and the economic theory is
nearer the facts. ....
A large pro-oortion of fishermen working on shares, and especially
of those composing the crews of small craft, do not really regard them-
selves as employees. The difference is p,axtly psychological and
partly a matter of the ownership of fishing gear, and of other privi-
leges .and responsihilities inconsistent ?rith a strict employee sta,tus.
During the worst years of the depression, moreover, fishermen were
frequently forced to wait for the liquidation of their shares, when
the purcha^sers of the catches of their craft were unahle to make pay-
ment within the time stipulated. Such men cannot he said to have
enjoyed effectively the "benefits of an employee sta.tus. It seems hard
to avoid the conclusion that for pra.ctical purposes the position of
most share fishermen is intermediate between tha^t of small enterpreneurs
and of employees in the ordinary sense. ' • .
EAMIHG-S PIT PISSSmtEN IN 1955
Almost the only available data with regard to the earnings of
fishermen are those resulting from the N.R.A. study of the subject,
made in connection with the fishery codes. The completed portion of
this study covered the vessel fisheries only. Table XXII summarizes
the results by geographical area and by vessels working on a share,
a wa.ge and a piece rate basis. The averages indicated in this table
have been weighted to allow for the fa.ct that the original da,ta fur-
nished considerably larger saraples. in the case of some fisheries than
of others.
With respect to the boat and shore fisheries it can only be said
for the present that the average gross income for the former in 1953
was about $500 per boat, and for the latter about $225 per man. Since
there are on an average one and a half men to a fishing boat, the
gross -income per man was proportionately lower. The average net in-
come of this large class can at present only be guessed at; but in
1955 it can hardly have exceeded $300 for the year. About a third
of these xnen, of course, are casual fishermen who derive at least
half their money income from occupations other than fishing,
SHARB EARMIvGS IN 1929 MP 1934
The questionnaire sent out in connection with the study of
fishermen's earnings called for data with regard to the year 1955
only. It has been possible, however, by supplementarjr calculations,
to estimate the corresponding earnings per man on share vessels in
1929 and in 1934. These figures are shown in Table XXIII. They in-
dica.te an average decline of 57 per cent from 1929 to 1933, and an
average increase from 1933 to 1934 of 52 per cent. In the latter yeax
the average was still about 35 per cent below the level of 1929.
9581
~64-r..
TIBLJ] XXII
AVEMaE E£RlvI3gGS OE "VES'SEL EI SHEEIviEH • FOR TEE' YEiEM933,. WBIGHOISD
■■ . ■■ACGOHI)IN(i TQ THE TOTAL' IfUlViBEH' IK EACH EtSHEEY,' 'BY AREA
"'"■,^ ,'■'■ "./:'.■■■ >Vf,;. ; -Qn, Share Vessels
•^®^ /•■•''.' "','.,,■„;' -■ :' ' ■ - ::■.:.. r :, \ . .,,.'' ';^''' •'- ■ ' ■■ . . On W0,ge
- ■;••. ,^',.[ '"" ' '■-■ From ■ Erom • ., JFroin Share s Vessels
...,■,,... . :,.[ ■ , Shsires '■:• Wages a/ _... arid Wages
Averalge,' U. S. ' Sind Alaska. ■$63.9'-,,,,. "$75S'-'' '
New England ••■■■:. - vo.- ■•, Sals'"'.? ' SOi''--"--^-'
Middle Atlantic: '^^ ;;. , '''■'.607.,'^J;'^'^-l'96 '
South 398"' ? •6i& ■■■
Great Lrkes ■ 525 500. :..-.
California' ....". 9,33 '. 85%
Northwest and Alaska ,■. ', •. .,66.6 ._ 332'
$649 . .
$'510
..6-79 .,
, 711
612 .
730
:399
391
679
658
. 847
1,389
/.606.
■ 525
Source: IT.R.A. , Division of Research and Planning, study of fishermen's
G2.rnings,
a/ . In addition to or in lieu of shares., , Such wages are paid
chiefly to .persons having special .duties or responsihilities,
such as mates, pilots, engin,e,6rp,, .radio 9perators and cooks,
' ' They do not. Include' percentage ■'bonuses paid to captains.
"9581
-65-
TiBLE XXIII
ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANIIUAL EARNINGS FROM SHARES
OE EISHERIvEEN ON SHARE VESSELS EOR THE YEARS
1934 AN3D 1929, COMPARED VfJTH 1933, BY AREA
Area
1934
1933
1929
Average, U. S, and Alaska
$969
$639
$1,498
New England
1 , 030
653
1,914
Middie Atlantic
503
607
1,867
South
466
398
■ 1,600
Grer.t Lalces
760
525
822
California
1,720
923
1,439
Northwest and Alaska
733
606
1,267
Source: N.S.A. , Division of Research and Planning, study of
fishermen's earnings.
CIIAUGES IN EARNINGS FROM WAGES
The data obtained in connection with this study did not permit the
making of comparahle estims,tes of the. 1934 or 1929 earnings of fishermen
receiving compensation on a wage basis. Prom fragmentary evidence,
however, it is apparent that earnings from wages fell scarcely half as
much from 1929 to 1933 as did earnings from shares, and that the former
rose scarcely one-fifth as much as the latter from 1933 to 1934. That
the latter recover;- was so small Tfas presLi::ia"bl;' due iifoart, of coui'se,
tc the r,cce;.)ted ts:
idenc^^ for
restriration of '.7:-^'Z,es to Ir.-., behind
"cJ^e
revivrl of ou.siness on an upv^ard nove^ieiat from p. deorer; sion,
7rom these facts it is clear that average earnings from wages n,re-.
norn?lly on a decid'ely lower level than earnings from shares. This is
due more to special conditions in the fisheries whose employees are com-
pensated on a wage basis than to deliberate policy; but it goes for to
explain the manner in which fishermen who have been accustomed to share
compensation' stick to that method by preference, even though in times
of severe depression it has affected them adversely,
FISHERliEN'S EARNINGS AMD THE PRICE CYCLE '
From 1929 to 1933 the average earnings of share fishermen fell more
sharply than the corresponding value of the catch, and from 1933 to 1934
they rose more sharply. That this was the case was mainly an indirect
9581
-66-
result of the relation "between the concurrent changes in the prices of
fishery products, ■ and in those of foods tuff s,. pe.troleum products, coal
and ice, the commodities which accoimt for the greater part of the cost
of operation of fishing craft. It seems abnormal, however, and somewhat
demoralizing that the' earnings of a class' whose income is as small as
that of most fishermen should vary more extremely, on the rise and fall
of the "business cycle, than the gross sales volume of the enterprises for
which they work,
Talcen together, these considerations suggest the desira'bility of
suhstituting some compromise "between straight share and straight wage
compense.tion for the traditional share system of the fishery industry
proper«
ABUSES m THE AJLilNISTIiATIOIT OF LAYS
At hearings and conferences on codes proposed for the primary pro^
ducing industry charges were made of a'buses in the administration of share
agreements.) Later the La'bor Adviser on these codes made an investiga-
tion of the situation in Boston, and collected prima facie evidence of
the existence of such a'buses. (*) Ihe charges were "brought against in-
dividual vessel owners in their capacity as commanders rather than as
owners;, 'and in the case of vessels operated "b;;- corp.orations the immediate
responsibility was put on the captains and wharfmasters rather than on
the companies as such. Tne abuses alleged to exist \7ere in the nature of
failure to give the _crews the benefit of quantity discounts on the pur-
chase of supplies, of charging the share accounts with 'tw'o or three fill-
ings of vessels' fuel tanlcs for single trips instead of one, etc.
This whole matter needs further investigation and, probably some
remedial action. In this country there has been practically no public
supervision of the administration of fishing last's, whereas in Great Bri-
tain, for example, such regulation dates back at least to the Act of
Parliament of 1894, The matter seems proper for action under a code
system; but remedies Gould presumably be applied by Federal legislation
even in the absence of codes,
THE FlgHEffl/IEI\r EivIFLOYED BY ALASICA SALMOirCAirilSEiaS
The stud^r of fishermen's earnings to which reference has been made
did not cover the so-called employee fishennen of the Canned Salmon In-
dustry in Alaska, These are the fishermen who work with craft or gear
owned or leased by salmon canning companies. For code purposes they
were, treated as employees of the Canned Salmon Industry, and not of the
Fishery Industry,
, This class accounted for nearly three-fourths of the 6,227 fisheiv-
men engaged in supplsj-ihg Alaska salmon canneries in 1934, Almost a half
(*) Statement based on a conversa,tion with the Labor Adviser. No re-
port on the subject has been found in the files of the Labor Ad-
visory Board,
9581
-67-
of these employee fishermen aie 'bro-aght up from the United States for the
season, 15 per cent are white residents of Alaska, end. 35 per cent are
Indians or Eskiraosi The proportions, ho\7ever, vary greo.tlv in the dif-
ferent psxts of the Tei-ritory, These men^ are nearly all employed in "boa^t
fisheries. .. ,
The "basic method of compensating employee fishermen in Alaska is at
a piece rate of so much per fish caught. In the Bristol Bay district of
Western Alaska, however, this piece payment is comhined r/ith a sua
called "run money", which, is supposed to "be compensation for labor pe3>-
formed at the .c-ijineries "before and after the fishing season projier, an.d
while the recipients are in traaisit "between the United States and Alaska.
This extra work includes the, loading and unloading of the trajnsporting
vessels ajid the overhauling, of fishing gear.
The average earnings of employee fishermen in the Salmon Canning
Industry appear, .from the "best information availa'ble, to have amoroited
in 1934 to a'bout $750. for the season, including run money, and in 1933
to a"bout $520, The accuracy of the a,vaila"ble figure for the corres-
ponding ea,rnings in 1929 is douttfrJL,
The earnings of employee fishermen are materially higher in TTestern
Alaska than in other parts of the Territory, ond higher in Central Alas-
ka than in the Southeastern division. This is largely a consequence of
the rela.tive scale of the fishing OTjerations; "but it is also associated
with the varying percentages of United States and local residents, and
of whites and natives.
These earnings a,re a.lso considerahlj*- higlier in the case of the can-
neries operated l),y the hig companies than in that of the smaller est3."b-
lishir.ents. In the Bristol Bay District, where the fishermen are prac-
tically aJl employees and are all emploj'-e.d lyj large concerns, the aver-
age in 1934 v;as ahout $1,075 for the season, and in 1933 about $750.
Cases of individuals who have earned $2,000 in the course of a. season
under favora'ble circuii stances are said to have been not uncommon.
TH3 TOTAL VOLUJ/IB OF COIIPBrSATIOlT 11: TKB ?ISI-ISRIES
It is not possible at present to give a figure for the volume of
compensation received "by all the persons employed in the primary pro-
ducing industry. The data. o"btained in connection with the study of
fishermen's ea.rnings imply a total volume for the vessel fisheries in
1933 of a'bout $9,476,000, In 1934 the corresponding figure was approx-
imately $12,826,000, and in 19.29 about $21,153,000. ■-
The volume of compensation juF5t given for the vessel fisheries in
1933 represented 38 per cent of the value of the vessel catch in that
ye.ar. The returns of the Census of 1908 i.ndicated a totpl compensation
for vessel crews of $8,230,000, excludinji Alaska, This represented 37
per cent of the value of the corresponding catch. If figures for Al3.ska
had been included, the percentage xYOuld have been revised a little. There
has a"rparently, however, been e-tremel^r little change in the ratio of
workers' compens?tion to the value of the fishery catch over the past
25 or 30 years.
9581
PKE-CCDB TTAGES .IH T?IE WHOLE SALIxTG- AlID PROCESSING DIVISIOloS
. ■" . - , . , J-
The situation '.vith respect to wagfes in the '..holesali-ng and proces- .
sing divisions of the fishery industry was less complex.and, less contro-- •
versial than in the C3.se of the pritdsry -oi-o duct ion, ■ TaMe XXIV sum-
marizes the available data on average pre-code earnings in the pipincipal
branches. Table XXV shows the distribution of employees earning wages
within various ranges in the case of a few groups for which such data,
were obtainable, ■ ■., •
The evidence is that, outside the Gulf : 'states, for, which little
information could be obtaihed the wages, paid in, thesei. -wholesaling and
processing industries, justbefore the institution of the. N.Pl.A. , up to
or rather o.bove the general level, trere and' that the ..proportions, of their
employees who were receiving ct^mpensation' at dis.tinctLj'- low rates were
small. The principal exceptions to this statement in Table XXIY are the
wages for office employees iii the Southeast Preparing aJid Wholesaling
Trade, for oyster shuckers in the ■Chesapeake, area, and ..for the employees
of the California and New England Sardine Canning Industries. The av-
era,ge shoMm for the first of ' these groups may not be .representative, and
in any case it is in the South, In the other exceptional cases the low
wages were largely the result of short time, due in its turn to a heavily
reduced. volume of business, , .■ ,
ITAGB VOLTJivIB OP TI-IE T^^GLESALIHGAflD Pg.QGESSING INDU.STEIES •
Table XXlV shows, by area, the Bureau of Fisheries data for the
total wage volume of the processing and wholesaling, divisions of the In-
dus tr;?-.
The 1923 figures in this t.able are incomplete and not strictly com-
par.able with those for the later s'-ears. Dpta for. 1933 are lacking in the
case of areas accounting in the aggregate for almost 25 per cent of the
total-. The' real extent of the decline in the wage volume of these in-
dustries during the dexDression, therefore, is not loioiTno -
Fifteen or 20 per cent of the tote.I vol'ome of wages shovm by Table
SXVI is accounted for by the canning and preserving industries, and 80 or
85 per cent b;'- the preparing and wholesaling trades.
GIi4:-S TOTAL T7AGE VOLIMB
Exa.ct fi;gu.res for the boat and shore fisheries are &i present lack-
ing,but the grand total volume of wages and shares, in 1933, of all per-
sons in the fisheries. proper who might be looked on in some sense as
employees may be estimated provisionally at $13,000,000, Por the Pish--
ery Industry as a whole the total vol'om.e of employees' earnings in the
same 3-ear may be put in a similar tenta'tive manner, at $47,500,000,
9581
-69-
TABLE XXIV
IVEEAG-E PRE- CODE WEEKLY SAEl^IK&S IK THE FISHERY
WHOLESALING AMD PROCESSING liTOUSTEIES
EIRST HALF OF 1933
Industry and Group Office Plant Erajjloyees
Employees
Per Week Per Season
Preparing and Wliolesaling Trades
General;
Nev/- England
Middle Atlantic
Mid\7est
SoTitheast
Northwest and Alaska
Southwest
Specialized;
24.28
$21.36
31.73
23. 57
24.51
21.15
13.54
24.12
26.29
18.69
20,00
24,52
Fresh Oyster
29.33a/
Shuckers t/
10.43a/
Cullers bj
^ —
22.08a/
Other Plant Employees
20,09a/
Wholesale Lobster
24.15
26,19
Sponge preparing and Wholesaling
oj
15,00d/
Processing Industries
Canned Salmon
Residents of the U, S: cj - — - —
Whites $224, 52e/
Orientals 164,55_e/
Residents of Alaska 100* OOd/
California Sardine c/ lO.OOd/
New England Sardine c/ 9,00d/
Source; Q;aestionnaire data and statements of industry representatives at
Code hearings, contained in ICIA Division of Research and Plan-
ning reports prepared "by John R, Arnold.
a/ Figures for December, 1932,
b/ Piece workers.
cJ No data; number of office employees small.
d/ . . Approximate only.
ej These workers receive quarters and board in addition to the
money wages specified,
9581
TABLE XXV
DISTRIBUTION OF PLANT EMPLOYEES IN CERTAIN FISHERY
WHOLESALING AND PROCESSING INDUSTRIES, BY PRE-CODE WAGE RATES
California Sardine Industry,
Season of 1933-1934
Cents per Hour
Total
iPer Cent of Total
Plant Employees)
100.0
Fresh Qyster Industry,
December, 1933
Dollars per ISfeek
Total
Cullers and
Shuckers
Other Plant
Employees
(Per cent of Total
Employees)
100.0
100.0
30
cents
35
cents
40
cents
45
cents
50
cents
55
to 59,
,9
cents
60
to 69.
,9
cents
70
cents
and over
Dollars per V/eek
83.2
8.1
4.7
.8
1.7
.1
1.3
.1
Under 10.00
10.00 to 14.99
15.00 to 19.99
20.00 to 24.99
25.00 to 29.99
30.00 to 34.99
35.00 and over
42.3
17.8
32.8
19.5
11.6
26.5
7.5
13.2
1.1
7.5
1.3
2.9
3.4
,12.6
General Preparing and Wholesaling Trades, June, 1933
Middle Atlantic
Southeast
Midwes
ta/
Northwest
and Alaska
(Per cent of Total Plant Employees)
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Under 5.00
5.00 to 7.49
7.50 to 9.99
10.00 to 12.49
12.50 to 14.99
15.00 to 17.49
17.50 to 19.99
2D. 00 to 22.4^
2<i.50 to 24.99
25.00 to 29.99
30. eO to 34.99
35.00 and over
25.4
,13.0
2.1
5.5
3.0
T.-8-
2.^
13.0
8.4
19.6
1.8
10.7
7.1
33.9
21.4
3.6
14.3
3.6
3.6
6.5
2.2
.9
1.1
1.9
9 .3
2.8
12.0
6.5
.6
12.1
29.0
11.2
1.0
4Sv9^
9.3
TT.z
2b"2
17.9
7.6
10.3
5 .5
2.8
2.2
^
Canned Salmon Industry, 1955 Season
White Residents of United States
Dollars per Month
(Per cent of total
Plant Enqjloyees)
Residents of Alaska
Cents per Hour
;(Per cent of total
Plant Employees)
Total
Und
ler
30,
,00
30.
,00
to
34,
.99
35,
.00
to
39,
.99
40.
,00
to
44,
.99
45,
.00
to
49.
.99
50,
,00
to
59.
.99
60,
,00
to
69,
.99
TfiO,
,00
to
79,
.99
80,
.00
to
89,
.99
100.0
5.0
15.7
9.0
12.8
23.9
33.6
Total
Under
15
cents
15
to
19.
.9
cents
20
to
24,
.9
oentd
25
to
29,
.9
cents
30
to
34,
.9
cents
35
to
39,
.9
cents
40
to
44,
.9
cents
45
to
49,
.9
oent»
50
cents
and over
100.0
3.5
7.4
9.4
39.7
20.7
9.8
8.0
1.5
Source: Questionnaire data supplied by establishnents and statements of industry representatives
at Code hearings, contained in URA. Division of Research and Pleuming reports, prepared
by John R. Arnold.
a/ Data from one large company having branches in various parts of the Midwest territory.
These data are believed to be fairly representative of the i.nduot»y.
-71-
T£BLE XXVI
TOTiL YQLVim OP UAGES 11© SALAIHES OF THE FISHERY
PSOCESSIlvTG AND FriOLESALIKG IlIiDUSTHIES, BY AEEA,
1929, 1931 and 1933
(in tiioxisands)
j^Pea 1933 1931 1929 a/ .
Processing Processing Processing TThole- Proces-
^^•^ ^^^ saling sing
¥aolesaling ^ole saling ana
Wholesaling
Total, U, S.
and
Alaska
$37,120
$21 , 914
$
21,122
$43,036
New England
5,410
7,113
3,651
5,286
8,937
Middle Atlantic ,
6,086
7,043
891
5,348
6,239
Chesapealce
2,367
2,802
599
2,727
3,326
South Atlaaitic
and G-ulf
^ .
2,822
2,320
1,836
4,156
Great Lalces
ty
2,610
277
2,469
2,746
Pacific Coast
6,095
6,751
6,860
2,301
9,161
■Mississippi River
^
3,080
208
£/
1,154
£/
1,362 c/
Alaska d/
3,289
4,899
7,108
£/
7,108
Source: Bureau of Fisheries, Fishery Industries of the United States,
1930, po 142; 1932, p. 175; 1934, p. 110.
a/ Incomplete though the precise tasis of the figu.res is unlcnovm»
The actual decline from 1929 ^jas somewhat greater than that
indicated,
'h/ Kot availatle,
c/ • 1922 figures, ' \ .
d/ Unpulslished data of the Bureau of Fisheries.
ej t?holesaling as a separa^te "business is negligible in Alaska.
9531
-72-
CHaPTER VIII
the' FISHERY CODE SIRUCTOEE AI\!D THE' TmiTIlTG OP THE CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE COICTEOL : OP THE CODES^^ ^ •:-,;,■,■
By the. President's Executive Order Uc 6132 of June 26, 1933, the
writing of codes for the Fishery Industry, along with that of axl others
for food producing and processing industries, was transferred to the
jurisdiction of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, A staff was
setup to deal with fishery codes; but when the latter were transferred
"back to the N. R. A. "by the Executive Order of Janu'^ry 8, 1934, none had
"been approvedo
THE HATIGUAL FISHERY. CODE
A public hearing was held at, an early stage on a Supplementary. Code
for the Atlantic Mackerel Fishery; "out the plan of those immediately
responsible was to concentrate first of all on the xrriting of a master
Code for the whole Industry, A hearing on the latter had already been
held on December 11, 1933, before the fishery codes' were transferred
back to the National Recovery Administration* A number of difficult
points remained to be settled, however, and the Code was not approved
until February 26, 1934, It went into effect on March 22» .
This master code, \7hich has .usually been referred to as the National
Fishery Code, contained basic labor and trade practice provisions, which
were, to apply to all members of the Fishery Industry not expressly ex-
cluded, except in so far as they night be modified by supplementary
codes, '.The provisions were deliberately ma,de, rather general, in the
belief that i t was not practicable at that stage to deal with the special
problems of individual sub industries,
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES
The National Code Authority was to be elected by the National Fish-
eries Association, the sponsor of the Code, independently of the subordinate
administrative bodies, provided for. No rules were laid down as to the
representation of geographical areas or of f-unctional subdivisions in
the election of the National Code Authoritjr; though the Administrator
was given (Article VIII, Title A, Section 1) -fairly wide powers for see-
ing that this body wp.s, in his judgment, sufficiently representative.
The National Code also provided for divisional Executive Committees
to administer it in the geographical areas and for the- specialised groups
for which it was planned to write supplementary codes. These bodies,
however, were to be set up, under the name of Temporary Executive Com-
mittees, in advance of the approval of such codes.
The National Code provided for an assessment of one-tenth of one
per cent of the previous year's sales of each member of the Fishery
Industry, These assessments were to be collected by the Executive Com-
mittees, the National Code Authority having no power to raise fxmds
9581
-73-
directly. Twejaty-five per cent of the collections were to "be transmitted
to the National Code Authority to cover its expenses, while the reinaindeiv
was to be retained for the administration of the National and supplementary
codes within the subdivisions.
DEFECTS OF THE NATIONAL CODE SET-UP.
The conclusion now seems inescapable that these arr'angements involved
serious errors of .judgnent. The plan of bringing the whole Industry with-
in the code system ,s.s' a first step, indeed, had distinct merits. Ex- .
perience in the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, moreover, had
shown that the process of writing individiial codes for the numerous sub-
divisions of the Fishery Industry as a start, and of then building an
integrated structure upon them as a foundation, would be very prolonged.
But though the principle of an initial master code ought probably to have
been retained, the defects of the system actvially set up were serious.
The National Fisheries Association, which was entrusted with the
election of the Code Axithority, was not sufficiently representative of
the fishing industry proper, or of the wholesaling and processing divisions
outside' the large northeastern centers. Even in New York City, influential
representatives of thfe local trades were opposed to the institution of a
national code body with the powers Find income actually assigned it. The
Administrator was obliged to disapprove the Code Authority as first elect-
ed, in order to insure some representation of the primary producing in-
dustry; and after this had been done the latter was represented by only
two out of a total of 11 members.
The administrative functions of the Nationa.l Code Authority, as
distinct from those of the divisional Executive Committees, were not well
defined; and there was a widespre.id feeling - not realized by the Admin-
istration at the tirae - that it was unreasonable to assign it as much as
25 per cent of the assessments,
mAT THE NATIGNiX'CODE PHOGRAM SHOULD HAVE BEEIT ' [
It now seems clear that the National Code structure should have
been, to begin with, much more modest. The provisions of the Code itself
should, perhaps, have been fewer and simpler than they were. All this
instrument could be expected to accomplish was to bring the Industry at
large within the code system, and to maice plain to its numerous members
that they were expected to meet the main items of the Administration's
program with respect to the hours a,nd wages of labor.
If any National Code Authority was needed before the esiablishment
of the divisional Executive Committees, it should have been a provisional
body, and should not have been elected by an organization of such dubious
representativeness as the National Fisheries Association, It should have
been frankly realized that this national body could be, at the beginning,
a little more than decorative, since practically all the actual work of
administration would have to be done by the divisional Committees,
It should probably have been provided, moreover, that these latter
bodies should themselves elect the permanent Code Authority, Much greater
9581
«74-
pains should have Ijeen taken, to make sure that the latter was thoroughly-
representative, geographically and functionalljr. It should probahly
have "been larger than the Code Authority actimlly provided, with the
realization that, to T3egin with at any rate, it had hest meet only once
or twice a year; that it would he primarily a hody of delegates' of the
local Committees; and that its functions during the earlier stages of the
code program would he chiefly to, discuss and advise. , i'or the purposes of
such a National Code Authority a smaller proportion of the assessments
than the 25 per cent actijxilly stipulated shoixld have been sufficient.
DEVELOPmHT OF THE SU?PLSI.iE;iTAP.Y "CODEa
Before the National Code was approved puhlic hearings had "been held
on supplementary codes for the Fresh Oysters the TiTholesale Lobster, and
the New England Preparing and Wholesaling divisions of the Industry, . The
writing of su;oplementary codes continued to he pressed. By the first 'week
in June, 1934, five had oeen ap^'sroved, as veil a,s an independent code for
the Oyster Shell Crushers Indxistry. The five :7ere the Fresh C^'^ster, the
■<7holesale Lobster, the California-Sardine Processing, the Atlantic Mackerel
Fishing and the Blue Crab Codes, ■/All these except the Atlantic Mackerel
Fishing Code were for specialized preps.ring rnd wholesaling trades or for
canning industries. The Atlantic Mackerel Code Applied to a. primary
producing, indiistry; and the Fresh. Oyster a.nd Blue Crab Codes included,
along with the preparing and wholesaling trades concerned, the, specialized
fishing industries producing those particular products.
In the course of a trip talcen by the Deputy Administrator/in charge
of the fishery co6.es and his advisers during April, and May, 1934, ..hear- .
ings were held on ten additional supplementary codes.
During the sumrier an independent Code was approved, for the Processed .,'
or Refined Fish Oil Industry, and a Supplementary Code for the Eastern
Section of the Trout Farming Industry - a very specialized subdivision.
The Sujjplementary Code for the Uew England Prepe.ring and TiTholesaling
Industry, on which a hearing had been held in February 1934, was not
approved till September, He■^ring.s on the other six codes for the general
preparing o,nd wholesaling trades had been held by the first week in June,
None of these, however, _ was approved until after the beginning of 1935,
a,nd three of them, had not been approved at the time of the Schechter
decision.
Public hearings were held on five other supplementary codes, for
branches of the primary producing industry - the G-reat Lakes Fisheries,
the Pacific Halibut Fishery, the Pacific Crab Fishery, the Lobster Fishery,
and the Florida Fisheries; but none of these had been approved at the
time the codes were suspended. ,
CAUSES OF THE DELAY IN TffilTIlIG SUPPLEilEHTAEY CODES
From this summary it is evident, first, that after five of the
proposed supplementary codes had been approved, there began to be great
delay in the writing of the remainder; second, that .this affected par-
ticularly the codes for the general preparing and ?/holesaling tra^des and
the fishing industries proper; and third, that the change in conditions
9581
-75-
to which these delays \'7ere due occurred a^bout Jiiiie , 1934.
This state of o^ffairs "/as primarily the result of two things - first,"
the large si^ie and artificial char~.cter of the areas to which the Admin-
istration insisted that the supplementary codes for the general preparing
and wholesaling trades and the primary producing industry should apply »
and second, the promulgation on .Jxuie 7, 1934, of Office Memorandum No.
228, which defined the provisions vdth regard to price filing and price
control that the Administration was prepared to a jprove in future codes«
The delays due to these causes, however, themselves tended to "breed fur-
ther delay, since it xDOstponed the writing of additional fishery codes
until the first interest in the code program and the first confidence in
its practicahility had subsided.
It should be stated emphatically that little if any of this delay
was the result of conditions in the Deputy Administrator's office. In
fact, had, it not been for the patience and persistence displayed 'by the
two Deputies successively in charge of these codes and by their staff, it
is unlikely that any of those approved after the early summer of 1934
wo-oldhave come into existence.
THE; PROBLEM OF SUPFLEIIENTABI CODE AP-EAS '
The problem of the areas to which the general preparing and whole-
saling and the less specialized fishing codes should ap.ily wps a difficult
one. The perishability at some stage of all fishery products, the small
size of the typical enterprise, and the lack of efficient large scale trade
organization before the II.R.A. was instituted, combined to cause the mem-
bers of the Industry to think of their interests in terras of comparatively
small areas. The number of fishery codes originally proposed X7as in the
neighborhood of 80, Both from a practical administrative standpoint, and
because, in the ca,se of the preparing and wholesaling trades, the smaller
the areas covered by the supplementary codes the greater would have been
the difficulty resulting from overlapping trade relationships, it was
essential to reduce this number considerably.
The difficulties created by the size and artificial character of
nearly all the seven regions finalljr insisted on by the Administration
as a basis for the supplementary codes for the general preparing a.nd
wholesa,ling trades were, ho?rever, serious. It was possible to obtain
assent to codes for some of these regions only by agreeing to a more or
less elaborate system of subcommittees for different parts.
In several instances the trade org,anization which presented the code
originally set for hearing was not and could not be representative of the
larger aroa. Conscientious efforts were made by these groups and by the
Deputy Administrator's office to obtain a.ssent from additional concerns.
But the somewhat forced inclusion of gtoups vfhich were conscious of no
strong bcoids of common interest with the original proponents diluted the
feeling in favor of a code system for the Industry, and worked against
the effective enforcement of the approved provisions,
A parallel insistence by the Administration on the writing of singr.e sup-
plementary codes for all out the most siacialii^ed fiplieries of rel.::t;ively
9581
■ -76-
l,n,rge areas w.asof itself enough to prevent even a good start in the case
of the primary producing industry.
OFFICE IvEEMORAICDm Wo 228 AM) TilE FISHERY CODES
The statements already made with regard to the prominence of pro-
visions for the maintenance and control of prices in the fishery codes
originally submitted, as a result of the severe defla.tion in the prices
of many fishery products from 1929 to 1933s suggest why the promulgation
of Office Iviemorandiim Eo., 228 proved a further cause of delg^^, particularly
in the case of the preparing and vjholesaling tradeso The proponents of
these codes' were more interested in provisions to prohibit destructive
price cutting and to permit the setting of minimum prices, with or with-
out emergencv limitations, than they were in the filing of open prices.
The former," however, were precisely the types of code provisions that
were banned or rigidly limited in scope and effectiveness by Office
Memorandum Wo, 228, and by manner in which it was interpreted, . ■■
it is not intended to raise any question as to the advisability of
the policy set forth in this Memorandum; -but the fact that it had the
effect of a bucket of cold water on the proponents of mpst of the fishery
codes, and adversely affected th& interest taken by the Industry. in. the
N.E.A, program, was too patent for dispute by any one familiar with the
factse
TILE DELAY ^IH ffRITINa CODES FOR THE FISHERIES
The limitations on the approval of price control provisions which
were set forth in Office Hemorandum No. 228 wefe a cause of delay in the
writing of supplementary codes for the primary producing industry also.
Here, indeed, controversies with regard to proposed conservation provisions
and to the restriction of competing imports from Canada, under the author-
ity of Section 3 (e) of Title I of the Recovery Act, played considerable
parts, ■
In the case of the Atlantic Mackerel Code, however, - the only su;;j"ile>^
mentary code approved for the fishing industry proper - the proponents'
interest had centered on clauses to permit the regulation of production
and the setting of emergency minimun priceso At the hearing on the pro-
posed Florida Fishing Code, again, and in preliminary correspondence re-
garding a code or codes for the unspecialized fisheries of the southern
New England and Middle Atlantic coasts, the primary desire of the sponsors
was for r.vovii-i'ais to a'intain or Cij:^itrol prices "o^ crude .-nd clr. atic v:.ctho<lB,
In the case of the proposed codes for the F.'^cific Halibut Fishery
and the fisheries of the Great Lakes, which had also not been approved at
the time of the Schcchter decision, the policj?' set forth in Office Memo-
randTjm Ko, 228 was not a pri;nar3^ catise of delay.
The total catch of both the American a.nd the Canadian halibut fleets
ha'R. been limited since 1924 under an international convention. The draft
code for this fishery proposed a secondary regulation of the landings
over short periods, without touching the total. It proved impossible,
however, to obtain the ,•: ssent of the Canadian interests, and as a result
9581
-77-
the draft vas in effect withdra^wn.
*
In the cr.se of the propossd Code for the Great Lalies Fisheries,
interest centered largely on the restriction of competitive imports from
Canada. Wlien it iDecame apparent thn.t to ohtain such restriction would
te a difficult and time-consuming matter, the desire to go a,head with
the code subsided rapidly.
There was also involved in this case the question of including in ■
the code a conservation provision which would apply uniformly to the
whole area' of the Lalces, and v/ould supersede the conflicting and in
large part ineffective laws of nine different states* .The desire of the
Deputy Administrator, who represented the views of the Bureau of Fisheries
on the suhject, to ottain assent to such a provision was commendable in
principle. It is hard, however, to escape the conclusion that the carry-
■ ing out of .the Bureau's conservation policy could not, as a practical
matter, he made a part of the fishery code program, and that the insistence
of the Administration in the matter was a serious factor in causing the
proponents of the Great Lakes Fishing Code to lose interest in it,
A PR.1CTICABLE SYSTEM OF FISHERY CODES
From the foregoing survey it is evident that the obstacles to writ-
ing codes for the primary producing industry were ra.ther formidable.
It is at least certain that the thing could not be done with a strict
adherence to the standard procedure of the Administration, and with a
continued insistence on the plan of a limited n-'omber of supplementary
codes for relatively large areas.
If another attempt were made to bring the fishing industry proper
within the scope of an industrial statute of the type of the Recovery
Act, representatives of the Government should, as a rainiraun, contact on
the ground organizations representing the fishermen of relatively small
areas. Codes or their equivalent should be established to begin with
for these small divisions, and coordinated into groups of larger scope
as a secondary step.
The codes for the primary areas should be of the simplest possible
description. They should be administered by small committees of local
men, who should be assisted by Government advisers. Such committees
should confine themselves at the outset to accustoming tlicir groups to
the idea of organized effort, and to the carrying OLit of simple programs
involving as little controversial matter as possible.
The secondary bodies representing larger areas should be thoroughly
representative of the primary committees, and free from domination by
the wholesR,le trades. As much use as possible should be raade of the un-
paid pa.rt-time services of members of the Industry and of unbiased out-
siders who might be willing to give cooperation. Assessments should be
kept to a bare minimun, and meetings sli ould be planned to avoid the
imposition of expense for traveling on a class ill-prepared to incur it.
It has already been intima.ted that the development of a code
9581
-78-
program of this tj^pe for the fisheries i^rould require a substantial period
of time; and another essential would he inexhaustible patienceo
A PR0G-HAlv4 FOR THE PBEFARIiIG AID TOOLESALIHG 'TBADES
This description of what experience suggests would he the sole
ultimately feasible program for bringing the fishing industry proper
within the scope of an industrial organization of the type of the N.S.A.
applies also, though with reduced emphasis, to the general wholesaling
and preparing tradeso To mention one illustration, the Supplementary
Code approved for the Ivliddle Atlantic region attempted to bring ujider
the jurisdiction of a single Executive Committee eight groups in the New
York' metropolitan area alone, which subsequent experience showed were
ill-prepared to work togethero The wholesale trades of the Philadelphia,
Baltimore and Washington areas were brought under the jurisdiction of
this code only by conceding them a separatee Executive Committee»
The specialized preparing and wholeso.ling trades and the canning
industries were relatively well fitted to work with codes- of the standard
typeo The fishery industries whose codes were most successful all belong--*
ed in these groupso
-79-
CHAPTER IX
THE ADMIMISTRATIOIJ GF THE CC3ES
HANDICAPS OF THE CODE BODIES . .
The bodies established to^ administer the fishery codes undertook the
work -under serious handicaps. The most important of these were:
(1) The lack of previous organization in the Industry, and the con-
sequent scarcity of .trained ^taff familiar with the problems to be dealt
with;
(2) The difficulty of collecting assessments in sufficient volume
to provide for any staff at all or for other administrative necessities;
(3) The difficulty of establishing a habit of compliance with the
codes under the special: conditions of the Industry;
(4) The difficulties arising from competition and jealousy between
groups in some of the a.rtif icially large code areas,
THE PROELEtrOF CODE FIUAlvICE ^ :
The problem that arose- in connection with the financing of these
bodies had its roots in, the fact tha^t the enterprises concerned were un-
accustomed to paying dues for- association or other common purposes, and
that at the time the first of their codes were ap'oroved a large propor-
tion were in very low financial water. The provision for the payment of
25 per cent of the assessments collected by the divisional Executive
Committees for the use of the iJational Code Authority did not meet with
general approval, and added to the unwillingness to contribute,
;..ost of these fishery code bodies were being organized at a time
when the Administration's requirements with respect to assessments and
budgets were becoming progressively more strict. The making of estimates
of collections and of budget needs, moreover, was hampered by the lack
of reliable data with regard to the Industry's recent volume of business.
In the absence of such figures several Committees submitted budgets which
were found to involve serious overestimates of the funds 4ikely to be
available.
FIHAUCSS OF THE MTIONAI, CODE AUTHORITY
The National Code Authority was affected by this financial situation
even more, relatively, than were the divisional Committees^ since it was
to receive its income indirectly from the collections made by the latter.
This body, moreover, ' proposed at the beginning a far too grandiose program
of spending,, This error of Judgment had unfortunate consequences, since
the National Code Authority, for reasons already explained, was from the
first none too popular in parts of the Industry, The publication of its
first proposed budget led to strenuous protests from fishermen's organiza-
tions; and when a revised estim§,te of th^ funds likely to be available made
i't necessary to cut the program heavily, the prestige of the national body
wa.s damaged still more,
9581
-80r-
COLLECTIOITS MD EXPENSI TUSES OF TES COMuITTEES
Ta^ble XXVII shows the estimated first year income of the fishery
code bodies for which "budgets were approved, assriming a 100 per cent
collection of assessments. There are ■unfortunately no reliable or
comparable figiires to shovr what proportions of these amounts were actually
paid in. It is understood that the Executive Committees for the South-
ern area of the Middle Atla.ntic, and for the Northern area of the South-
west Preparing and Yfliolesaling Industries took in something like the
estimated totals. It seems doubtful, however, whether, in any other
case, collections amounted to as much as 25 per cent of the estimates.
Applying these statements to the figures in Table ZXVII , it becomes evi-
dent that hardly any of these committees had funds sufficient to enable
then to institute more than a skeleton organization, or to undertaJce
anything but a bare minimum of activities, iloreover, the indispensable
work of obtaining approval of a budget, and of getting in as large a
vol-ume of assessments as practicable, in itself a,bsorbed a disproportion-
ate part of the time and energy of the snail staffs that could be es-
tablished.
In the case of some fishery code bodies there is room for criticism
of the salaries which it was proposed to pay to e::ecutive officials sJid
to legal counsel. The difficulties of the work undoubtedly called in
principle for the em.plojTnent of the most conpetent persons obtainable;
but it would have been more realistic to recognize, under the peculiar
circtunstances, that as much as possible of the initial work would best
be done by members receiving no pay, or to employ other persons tempor-
arily at more modest salaries, with the ejg^ectation that the latter
would be raised 8.s soon as circumstances permitted. It should be stated,
however, that the persons to whom these somewhat uneconomical salaries
were promised continued. in most cases to carry on their work conscien-
tiously^, even when their' compensation fell in arrears.
THE COi^lPLIAHCE PHOBLEM m GEMSAL '
After the foregoing discussion it is probably enough to summarize
the conditions that made the problem of obtaining compliance with the
fishery' codes more than usually difficult. These codes affected large
numbers of enterprises,' most of which were small, and which had not
been trained in the habit of working cooperatively. The divisional Com-
mittees, which were the real working administrative bodies, were for the
most part not established till the first interest in the code program
had begun to subside. This psychological difficulty was complicated
by the feeling v/ith respect to the Administration'. s policy on the con-
trol of prices. The code Committees themselves, with inadequate staffs,
were absorbed in the primary work of getting orgajnised, of preparing
budgets that could be approved, and of collecting bare minimums of
funds .
CODS] ElPOaCEMSMT BEGA3I)ED AS A GOVBUMvISHT RESPONSIBILITY
Apart from these conditions, however., the activity of these code
bodies in endeavoring to obtain compliance was affected by their mental
attitude as to the part the Administration should pl3.y.
9681
-81-
TABLE XnU
ADVAIICE ESTIiylATES OF TIiE FIRST YEAIl lilCOi.iE OP CERTAIN
FISHERY CODE BODIES, AS SUlvi II JG 100 PER CEI:T COLLECTIOII OF
ASSES SI^IEKTS
Code Income
National Fishery
$46,000
Fresh Oyster
22,200
Blue Crab ' . ,
19,950
Midwest Preparing & Wholesaling
13,500
Atlantic Mackerel
3,450
•.iiddle Atlantic Preparin>7: and Whole
ssaling:
Northern Area
40,000
Southern Area
7,500
Trout Farming
2,600
Wholesale Lohster,
18,350
Southvirest Preparing and Wholesaling
Northern Area _ 4,600
Northvrest Pret)a.ring and \"Jholesaling
Northern Area _ . 4,650
Great Lakes Fishing 7,540
Southeast Preparing and Wliolesaling 13,000
Source: Approved hudgets of fishery code bodies.
9581
-82-
The Industry had few large corporations accListomed to influencing
government policy and to controlling local police administration. Its
members vrer6 representative rather of the great mass of the conjitry's
smaller enterprises, which have taken it for granted tha.t responsibility
for any sort cjf-oolice activity rests on the established political author-
ities alone. These concerns assented to codes, therefore, on the tacit
assumption that the Administration proposed to accept that responsibilitj'".
As the fishery code bodies got organized, ajad as the first cases of non-
compliance were brought to their attention, they reported them to the
N.R.A., v.dth the expectation that decisive action ?:ould follov; promptly.
When, instead of this, they met with indecision and delay, they v/ere
unprepared to talce substitute action on their own account.
liembers of these bodies whose opinion has been soiif^ht are practical-
ly ujianinous in holding that at the outset there need have been few cases
of the actual punishj.ient of members for noncomplia.nce. The essential
thing, they contend, was a prompt and unmistalcable indication from the
Administration that it proposed, to stand no nonsense. ' They believe, in
other words, that it v/ould have been possible to bring all or nearly
all those who were disposed to be recalcitrant into line by a sufficient-
ly impressive bluff,. In vie^^ of the unanimity with which, this view is
held it probably represents what should have been tried, if the best
possible chance of obtaining compliance ?iith these codes was to have
been taken.
ACTUAL SEVELOPIvlENTS WITH BSSPECT TO C0MPLIAMC3
As things actually were the activities of the fishery code bodies
in endeavoring to obtain compliance e.mounted to very little. All of
them, it is believed, took the requisite initial steps to bring the ]pro-
visions of the codes to the attention of their members, and to report the
first cases of noncompliance. As their financial difficulties increased,
however, and as it became 3.pparent that the Administration was not in a
position to act promptly on the cases brought before it, most of the
fishery code bodies, metaphorically speaking, threw up their hands»
EXCEPTIOHAl CASES OF 11055 EPIECTIYE ASi.IIIvTISTaATIOM ,.
There were a few exceptions to this general lack of effective admin-
istration of the fishery codes, confined for the most paxt, to the can-
ning industries. The Comjnittees o,dministering the Canned Salmon and both
the Ca-lifornia and Ee\7 England Sardine Codes are believed to have made
a record of relative efficiency. Tnese were industries with limited
numbers of members, located in two or three states at most, utilizing
single species of fish, and producing small varieties of nonperishable
products. Their members v;ere more accustomed than were those of the
primary producing industries or of most of the preparing and wholesaling
trades to wo rkih.'^ cooperatively, and there were no important problems aris-
ing from inter-group competition and jealousies.
It is unfortunately impossible, however, to report in detail on the
adrainistra-tion of these codes. There has not been much chance to confer
with members of the Committees concerned since the codes were approved;
and their records a.re located, in two of the three cases, on the other
side of the continent, and in the third in a small community in a remote
section of Maine. The files in Washington contain little relevant
9581
-83-
material. A proper report on the adraini strati on of these codes would
involve, at the very least,, the circulation of special questionnaires,
supplemented "by conferences with lea.ding members.
It is believed that a similar record of efficiency was made by the
Temporary Executive Coraiiiittee a.drainistering the Fationo.1 Code in the
Northern California area; but for the same reasons as in the case of the
other Pacific coast industries little detailed information regarding its
activities is B.t present available. This bodj" was promoting a Supple-
mentejr;;- Preparing and Hiolesaling Code for the Southwest region of the
United States, but the latter had not been aoproved at the time of the
Schechter decision.
OSiis situation virith respect to the a,dministration of the fishery
codes, of course, had its comiiensating features. It ejqplains, for one
thing, why there were so few (iases of stays or' exemptions. Applica.tions
for the latter, indeed, were negligibly fev/. The- Executive Committee of
the Presh Oyster Industry did apply for- a stay of the price filing pro-
. visions of its Code, The Canned Salmon Code Authority also, under some-
what siiiilar circumstances, asked for a. stay of Hule 3 of Article YII,
which prohibited the diversion of brokerage fees to customers. These
matters are further discussed in Chapter XII sjid XIII.
PEW CASES OP HIGHHA1\T)ED ACTIOI-I BY CODE BODIES -.
Another compensating result of the situation with respect to the
administration of the fishery codes was the infrequency of charges of
higliiia.nded or coercive action on the part of' the Executive Committees,
One would natiorally be inclined to look for such' cases, if anywhere, in
the exceptional industries above mentioned, whose administrative bodies
made records of relative efficiency. There were a few, but so few as
almost to prove the rule, ■■■'""■' ■ ;
In the case of the Temporary Committee 'administering the National
Code in the ilorthern California area there was one flagrant instance of
highhanded action. (*). A salmon canning and wholesaling company
reported the receipt from thife body of minimum price lists, for which
the I'Jational Code provided no authorization.
Tliis protest was mad.e in April, 1934, Ihen the Deputy Administrator
arrived in San Prancisco the following month, to hold a hearing on the
proposed preparing and vfholesaling code for the SouthvTest area, further
oral reports of these price-fixing activities were received. At the hear-
ing the committee's attention vras called to the complaints and to the
limitations of its pov/ers in aclministering the National Code, llo further
protests were received; but there seems to be no direct evidence in the
files as to v/hether the activities complained of were discontinued or not,
(*) The correspondence relating to this ca^se, with samples of the mini-*
mum Drice lists .and the instructions from Committee, are in the files of
the Consumers' Advisory Board, Southwest Preparing and vTholesaling Code.
Polder,
9581
-84-
There ff„re slight indications that the Executive Committee administering
the California Sardine Processing Code stepped over the line in a similar
though much less pronounced fashion in administering the provision of
its Code uhich prohibited sales "bolow members' individuauL cost* Por the
reasons indicated above, however, it is impossible to form 8. conclusive
opinion vdth the information at "oresent available.
Iliere seems to be no evidence that either the Co.nned Salmon Code
Authoritjr or the Executive Committee of the Hew England Sardine Industrjr
overstepped the proper boundeCries of its authority in its administrative
activities.
The only other kno\?n allegation of highhanded action on the paxt of
a fisher;'- code body came to light through correspondence with the Division
df Stondards and Purchase of the Execiitive Department of the State of
New York (*). It was intiraa^ted that bids on eggs for the state hatcher-
ies had afforded indications of collusion on the part of members of the
Trout Farming Industry. The complainants were given the opportunity to
submit further evidence; but as far as known they did not do so.
THE CODE BODIES AITO THE COLLECTION OF STATISTICS
In closing this survey of the administration of the fishery codes
a word should be said with regard to the collection of statistics. The
development of this work, while perhaps not a primarj/ or immediately
pressing duty of the code bodies, was a potentially important one. The
Bureau of Fisheries, which has been the only Government agency to pub-
lish systematic statistics with regard to the Industry, has scarcely
touched any phase of the subject except production and the volume of
eraplojrment; and it has been so badly behind in the work as greatly to
reduce the value of its data in connection with the codes.
Unfortunatelj'-, however, the National Code Authority and most of
the Executive Committees failed to make even a beginning in this task.
They were badly handicapped, of course, by the absence of previous or-
ganization for the purpose within the Industry, by the great number and
'small size of the enterprises concerned, and by lack of staff and funds
for anything beyond the barest essentials.
The Executive Committee of the California Sardine Processing Indus-
try did make ,a good beginning in collecting and submitting monthly data
on production and inventory. The Fresh Oyster Industry cooperated ef-
fectively in a survey of pre-code labor conditions. For the most part,
however, it would have been necessary, if the codes had continued in
force, for the Administration to take the initiative in developing a
program of statistical work, and to give the code bodies substantial
cooperation in so doing. Even so, no rapid progress coiild have been
expected.
As things stand, there is an. almost total lack of precise figures
on the condition of these industries duxing the existence of the codes
and since their suspension. . -.
J^ The correspondence in this matter v/as handled by meri)irect£>r of \he>-
Research and planning Division. Copies are in the file of the Fishery
.Un^t,i Trout .Farming:. F-XPlanfitions . Folder. _ ,. , — ^
9581
-85-
CHAPTER X
CODE PROVISIONS EELATING TO HOURS OF LIBOR
The previous discussion of working hours in the Fishery Industry hs^s
explained v/hy the writing of the code provisions on the subject should
have involved a great deal of controversy, and why they shotild have fail-
ed to yield very satisfactory results.
WO R5STRICTIC1\" OF HOURS IN THE FISHERIES PP.OESR
In the case of the Fishing Industry proper there was a disposition
to agree fron the "beginning that the restriction of working hours was im-
practicaole. It was also felt that, as there had heen no large contre^c-
tion in the volume of employment since 1929, the Industry was not vmder
imperative ohligation to participa.te in that part of the program.
RESTRICTIOlv! OF HOURS IN THE P:IEPjffilATG AIxTD Y/K0LESALI1\TG 'IRASES
In the case of most of the prepa.ring and wholesaling trades the fact
that really long hours ha.d been sporadic only led to a. feeling that little
spread cf employment would he brought about by any practicable degree of
restriction. It was obvious that the additional employment created vrould
in most instances be for short and irregular periods, and often only for
a few houjTs at a time. The volume of employTient of most of these trades,
moreover, is not large; and the maximum addition that could have been made
by shortening hours would have constituted a relatively trifling contribu-
tion to the solution of the main problem. The adjnini strati ve and account-
ing comolicrtions involved in a really thoroughgoing restriction of hotors
were such as to appear out of the question.
In the case of the piece workers in the Fresh Oyster and Blue Crab
Industries the hours of labor tended already to be so short, as a result
of a red^iced volume of business, as to maJce any further restriction for
the purpose of spreading employment seem impracticable. Such a reduction
would either have cut doiivn earnings which were already below a decent
standard, or would have placed on the shoulders of many small members of
the industries concerned an additional financial burden which they proba-
bly could not have borne.
The maximum hours finally agreed on for the preparing and wholesaling-
trades are shown in Table XXVIII, omitting exce;otions in favor of special
groups. In most cases the basic maximum week varied little from 45 hours.
Because of the lack of detailed figures and the irregularity of the
hours worked before the institution of the N. R. A,, it was hard to es~
timate the effect of these restrictions. In the Fresh Oyster and the
Blue Crab Industries it was obvious that there would be little or no
spread of emiDloyment, In the preparing and wholesaling trades in the
South pre~code working hours had been so long that, if the proposed
supplementary codes had been a.pproved, the additional employment -.rould
have been relatively considerable. In the other trades of this group
the best practicable estimates indicated that the spread would be rather
small and very spotty, and scarcely such as to justify the controversy'' and
delay to which the attempts to reach agreements on the subject had led,
9581
TABLE XXVm
MAXIMUM HOURS OF THE FISHERY CODES. WITH THE ESTIB/IATED
RESULTING SPREAD OF EMn,OIMENT
Maximum Hours of Labor
Plant Employees Offiod Employees
(Hours per Week) (Hours per Week)
Es-ttimated Spread of
EmjJloymsnfc
Number of Workers (Pe/r Cent)
(Plant and Office)
Fishery Industry (Hational Code)
Preparing and Wholesaling Trades;
General;
New England
Middle Atlantic
Midwest
Southeast
Gulf South
Northwest and Alaska
Southwest
Specialized:
Oyster
Blue Crab
Lobster
Sponge
Primary Processing Industries!
Canned Salmon
New England Sardine
Male
Female
California Sardine
90 */
48
45 /
90 1/,
40 o/
48 21
48 ,
48 1/
48 i/
48 ,
60 £/
40
60
** /
90 2/
40
40
40
40 ,
40°/
40 2/
44 -
40 V
40-44 •/
44
44
40
40
40
500
1300-1400
1800
400-500
i/
b/
40
80
1^
b/
19-25
30-55
30
12-13
To
10
20
Secondary Processing Industries;
Oyster Shell Crushing
Processed or Refined Fish Oil
Fish Propagating Industries:
Trout Farming
40
36
90 2/
a/
40
40
40
165
150
10
33
20-25
10
Source;
s/
c/
2/
IpJA, Division of Research and Planning ^ reports on the fishery oodei.
90 hours in any two consecutive veeks.
Spread of employment negligible.
Proposed hours; supplementary code not approved.
48 in towns of over 2,500; 90 in any two consecutive weeks in towns of 2,500 and loss.
40 hourw from April to September; 44 from October to March.
48 hours without overtime pay; 60 hours with overtime payj 90 hours maximxim in any two
consecutive weeks.
£/
There were no effective maximum hours for plant workers in the Canned Salmon Industry,
-87-
Specific estimates of the spread of employment v/hich vrere thought
likely to result from the ms-ximum hours vrritten into the codes for the
preiDaring and wholesaling trades are also shovm in Tahle XXVIII.
BESTRICTIOlxf OF HOURS IN THE CAI^IWING INDUSTRIES
In most of the canning industries the situation was similar to tha-t
just discu.ssed. Since, at the time the Supplementary Code for the Cali-
fornia Sardine Industry ivas written, the opening of the next active season
was three months in the future,, it. .was, perhaps unwisely, thought "best to
leave the negotiations witli regard to, maximum houl's to "be continued after
the Code had "been approved.. There follo.wed a prolonged controversy which
never reached a conclusion. Ultimately, after some weeks of the 1934-
1935 season had already expired, the Administrator, with the tacit con-
sent of. the industry, restores the maximum hours originally applicable
under the National Code, The result was only fairly' satisfactory hut
prohahly as good as anything that could have heen put through.
The New England Sardine .Indtis try a.greed to a schedule of maximum
hotirs which was somewhat more satisfactory from" the N.H.A. standpoint
than that of the Canning Code, to which it had heen subject during most
of 19S4. It would not appear that anything more could ha-ve heen ac-
complished,
THE CANl^P SALIiON COnS AND HOURS OE LABO'R
In the case of the Canned, Salmon Code it was realized, as already
pointed out, that it woul.d do more harm than good to attempt, to restrict
the hours of labor for the jjurrjose of spreading employment, though this
hardly justified the coaplicated and not wholly straightforward provi-
sions on the subject which were s.ctually included in the Code.
There v.as inserted a. clause (Article IV, Section 3) for the pa3'-fflent
of overtine for hours worked in excess of 10 laer day in canneries outside
of Alaska, As it stood, this provision involved discrim.ination against
those working in the latter Territory, The reason for this has never
been made i.Tholly clear. It does not appear, however, that the companies
operr.ting canneries in Alaska were unwilling to pay overtime; and in fact
a clause providing for it was later inserted in the standard employment
agreement dra.r.'n up in accordance with Article YI, Section 8, paragraph
(k) of the Code,
It is fairly certain that, if the Code had continued in operation,
this matter would have been adjusted. If that had been done, and if the
basic provisions with respect to working hours had been simplified and
more frankly stated, there wouD-d not have been serious ground, in view
of the peculiar conditions of the Industry, for criticising that part of
the Code,
THE AGGHEGAOIB SEREAD OE EMFLO'fl\CENT IN THE EISHERY INDUSTRY
There are practically no detailed figures to show the actual effect
of the restriction of working hoiirs in spreading emplojnnent in the Eisher3r
Industry. Up to the time the codes were suspended none of the bodies a.d-
ministering them had had the funds or facilities for making surveys on
the subject. The employment data collected by the Bureau of Fisheries
9581
were not suf I'iciently ui^ to date to 1)6 of value for the purpose. Ho\;-
ever, t.lie situation is sufficiently clfear to permit of a general state-
ment.
Of the 188,500 persons, approxima.tely , who were engaged in the
Fishery Industry in the middle of 1933, 118,000 were in the primary pro-
ducing industry, and ^-ere consequently excepted from restrictions on
their working hours. The same was true of ahout 10,000 shore workers in
salmon canneries in Alaska. In the case of ahout 68 per cent of the
personnel of the Industry, therefore, there was, from mere force of
circiuistances, no attempt to spread employment. In the case of the other
32 per cent - that is, ahout 60,500 vrorkers - the aggregate spread can
hardly have exceeded 5,000, or a little over eight per cent. This was
certp.inly not, from the standpoint of one of the fundamental ohjects of
the P.ecover;/- Act, a verjr satisfaxtory result. In the main, however, it
must he rego-rded as an inevitable consequen.ce of the special conditions
of this particular Industry,
C0J.gLIAlTCE 171 TH THE MAXIMUM HOUR PROVISIONS ■ •
The compliance problems that arose from the maximuin hour provisions
of the apjiroved fishery codes were not serious. The restrictions were
mostly not drastic and vrere likely to create hardship only in the case
of occasional days or weeks. As the extent to which these Torovisions
were observed in practice there is at present no detailed or conclusive
informe.tion. There is no positive evidence of widespread or syste-natic
noncompliance. Since, however,' the raaxirauin hour provisions were regard-
ed.by the Industry as somewhat academic and superfluous, it may be that,
especially during the latter part of the existence of the codes, they
were not observed rigidly.
9581
-89-
CHAPTSR XI
MIUIIJOT;! T7AGE PHOVISIOES
TaTsle XXIX shows in a simplified form the minimum -wage rates
written into the approved fishery codes. Exceptions affecting special
groups have "been omitted.
SHA.ee FISHErd.IEH AMD THE MIHIIIUT.I WAG-E FROGEAI/I
The National S'ishery Code estatlishcd the precedent of excepting
fishermen working on shares from the benefit of a minimum wage rate.
The contention of the pro-oonents was that a guarantee of a minimum
share compensation would he luifair to owners of fishing craft unless
acconrpejaied h;?" a mariratun limita.tion; a,nd that the latter "ould he op-
posed hy the fishermen.
This argument undoubtedly had merit; and the situation, admittedly,
was not one to which it wa.s iDracticahle to apply the standard minimum
wage policj'- of the Administration offhand - especially in view of the
nearly complete lack of information with regard to actual earnings of
fishermen in the past and at the time. It was nevertheless a defect
of the Code that it did not establish the principle that this large
group of iTorkers was entitled to some equivalent guarantee.
The Code did stipulate (Article VIII, Title B, Section 1, para-
graph (d) and Title C, Section 1, paragraph (a) that. the National Code
Authority and the Executive Committees jointly should make a study of
the share s3''stom and the earnings of share fishen-nen. The procedure
provided for, however, wa.s cumbersome; and it soon became apnarent that
the pi-ospect of b. com-prehensive a,nd disjoassionate report within any
measurable time was negligible.
It was then that it "a.s decided to undertake, in the Research and
Planning Division of the II.R.A, itself, the study of fishermen's earn-
ings to which frequent reference has been made, a,nd which, indeed, has
supplied practically the sole information availalDle on the subject for
the purposes of this report. As the facilities for the work were limit-
ed, however, the survey was still not ouite completed at the time the
codes were suspended; and there had been no op'oortunity to raise the
question of amending the National Code to provide some guarantee of
minimum earnings for share fishermen.
How much could have been accomplished if the codes had been con-
tinued in force is uncertain. The UT)turn in the value of the fishery
catch which developed in 1934 would undoubtedly, for the tim.e being at
a.ny ra.te, ha-ve diminished the interest taken in the matter by the fish-
ermen themselves.
3S AlO THE mC-E EISHSSl,iE]:T
The ninimun wage rates of the National Code did apply at the out-
set to the 25 per cent of all fishermen, approximately, who work on a
9581
TABLE XXK
MINBIUM WAGE RATES OF THE FISHERY CODES, WITH THE
ESTIMATED RESULTING INCREASE IN, WAGE VOLUME
Code Minimunj Rate
Plant Employees
(Cents per
Hour)
(Dollars per
Vjeek)
Fishery Industry (National Code)
29-36
13.00-16.00
Preparing and Wholesaling
Trades :
General:
New England
424
^mm
Middle Atlantic
—
24.00
Midwest
224 L/
20.00
Southeast
15.00 i/
Gulf South
~
Northivest and
Alaska
40
20.00l±/
Southwest
~
Specialized:
Oyster
25 £./
^^
Shuckers
__
Other Plant
Employees
—
16.00
Blue Crab
18
„
Lobster
~
20.00
Spon,'^e
—
18.00
Office
Employees
(Dollars per
Week)
16.00
16.00
18.00
18.00
15.00 V
15.00 £/
18.00
16.00 V
16.00
16.00
17.50
16.00
Estimated Increase in
V/age Volume
Plant and Office
Employees
(Dollars) (Per Cent)
-v
-v
-7
a/
a/
a/
24
500,000
124
625,000
24
375,000
30-35
a/
520,000
12-13
150,000
144
30
d/
To
15-20
40
k
Primary Processing
Industries :
Canned Salmon
Alaska
United St-itissV
California Sardine
New England Sardine
Secondary Processing
Industries :
Oyster Shell Crushing
Processed or defined
Fish Oil
35 1/ - '
374 £/ y
75.00 l/l/i/
75.00 1/1/ l/
75.00 £/£/
75.00 2/ £/
1
—
16.00
16.00
a/
25
~
15.00
a/
30
45
16.00
16.00
y
V
26
20
25
Source; IJRA, Division of Research and Planning^ reports on the fishery codes,
a/ Data insufficient for an estimate.
Proposed rates; supplementary codes not approved.
Rate for the North; rate for the South 20 cents per hour.
No increase.
Dollars per month.
Rate 'here board and quarters were not furnished.
Rate for cannery (indoor) v/orkers. For outdoor employees^ the corresponding rate v^^as $95 per month.
Rate for male employees. The corresponding rate for females was 32g cents.
L/
£./
1/
2/
£/
-91-
wage or piece rate "basis, A su'bsta.ntial rnpgorit:/ of these are in the
oyster and menhaden fisheries and on the G-rea.t Lakes. The Fresh Oyster
and the proposed Great Lakes Fishing Codes merely continued the minimum ^
rates of the National Code,
WAGES m THE OYSTER FISHERY
The wage fishermen of the Fresh Oyster Industry are mainly emploj'-ed
hy the oyster-cultivating companies of the North Atlantic area. . In
1933 they earned on an average atout $725 for the year. Few of them
were receiving less tha,n the minimum rates of the National Code, In
the South, however, a limited numher of employee oyster fishermen nrolDahly
henefited from the latter,
WAGES PIT TIIE GREAT LAKES
The t^st available information indicates thr.t in 1933 nearly two-
thirds of the fishermen on the Great Lakes were coiroensated on a wage
"basis. There are no detailed figures as to how many. were receiving
less tha.n the minimum rate estahlished "by the National Code, The imr-
pression is tha.t a considera.'ble percentsge were heing paid helow this
rate, "but in most cases not very much less,
WAGES IN THE ICENHADSII FISHERY
The ordinary fishermen employed "by the Menhaden Industry of the
,South Atlantic coast arc almost all colored. Before the N,R,A, in 1933
these men were receiving an average money wage of not more than $10 a
week, and the rates were s^dmittedlj not raised to comolywith the re-
q^iirements of the National Code, This was a.lmost the only fishery in-
dustry which wa-s never, at any stage, desirous of a code. Its noncom-
pliance rdth the minimum wa.ge provisions of the National Code, especial-
ly in the State of "Virginia, was notorious; "but no effective action was
taken "by the authorities concerned (*),
These menhaden fishermen are given "board and quarters during the
short a.ctive season of the fishery, in addition to the money wages a"bove
mentioned. It is possi"ble that, if the vaolue of the former were ta.ken
into a.ccoun.t, it could he held that the minimrum wage requirements of the
Na.tional Code had "been met.
The Code itself was silent on the -'hole question of the part pay-
ment of fishsrmen in mediums other than money. In the case of the Men-
haden Fishery, the issue was never forinplly raised. It did come up,
however, with reference to certain emnloyee'H of the Salmon Fishery in
Alaska and of the Ojrgter Fishery in the South (**-^. The Legal Adviser
then took the position that, unless an axiendment on the su"bject were to
"be a.dded to the National' Code, 'the money valxie of such "board and quarters
shoxild "be ta]:en into account in determining the fact of corrpliance oi-
\*) Correspondence on this suhject is in the Deputy Administrator's
file! Menhaden Fisher;'-, Comnents,
(*>*) Corres-iondence on this su'bject is in the Dex)utjr Administrator' s
file: National Code, Ejcplanations Folder.
9581
-92-
noncomoliaiice rfith the minimuin wage provisions. It is not Relieved that
this ^7as, the intention of the Administration at the time the Code was
written; "bxit it did not prove practicahle to take up the question of an
amendjnent to cover the point.
MIHItilUlJ WAGES IN THB FHEIPARIIT& MP WHOLBSALIITG TRADES
The minimum wage rates of the National Code were intended to apply
temporarily only, to the preparing and wholesaling trades; hut as things
worked put they were never superseded in the case of the Southeast, the
Gulf South and the Southwest areas. In the latter instance the propor-
tion of employees who had heen receiving less than the National Code
minimum must have "been negligihle. In the southern areas the situation
is not so clear, hut the nuraher henefited was prohahly appreciahle,
. "fith in^iortant exceptions in the case of the piace workers in the
I'resh Oyster and Blue Crah Industries, minimum rates at least up to the
general code standard, and in most cases higher, were agreed upon. for
the prepa,ring and wholesaling trades for which supplementary codes were
written, wi"6h very little controversj'". The greater part of the employ-
ees concerned were heing tolerahly paad heforo the H,P.,A. , and the pro-
. portion that henefited even from the relatively high rates adopted was
small*
THE WAGES OP OYSTEE SHUCICEHS AND CEAB PICEES
Eifty-five or 60 per cent of the employees in the Fresh Oyster In-
dustry are shuckers who are paid on a piece hasis. The same is true of
crah meat pickers, who account for not much less than 90 per cent . of the
gross volume of employment in the Blue Crah Industry,
The Eresh Oyster Code estahlished for shuckers a piece rate of 25
cents per gallon in the North and 20 cents in the Chesapeake area and the
South, with a guarantee of 25 or 20 cents per hour on a time hasis.
Since it is practicahle to shuck, on an average, more than two gallons
per hour of the cultivated oysters -oroduced in the North Atlantic area,
the 25 cent rate gave satisfactory results. The numher of workers
henefited hy it, however, was negligihle, and there was practically no
motive for not complying T^ith it.
With the type of oyster chiefly ohtained in the Chesapeake area an
a,verage shucker can open onlj a little over a gallon an hoiir. At the
Code rate, therefore, these workers were very nearly limited to earnings
of 20 cents an hour, -Even so, the 20 cent rate was not generally lived
up to in Chesajjeake area.
In the case of the Blue Crah Industry, seven-eighths of which is
concentrated in the Chesapeake area, a relatively satisfactory piece
rate of six cents per poimd, with a time rate minimum of 18 cents per
hour, was agreed upon. These rates were generally lived up to hy memhers
of the Industrsr in Maryland, hut not hy those in Virginia.
The recalcitrant attitude of the Virginia crah packers was closely
connected with the controversy regarding the conservation r)rovisions of
9581
-93-
the Blue CralD Code. Such data as could "be obtained tended to indicate
that the smaller packers in the Chesapeake area, toth of oysters and of
crabs, uere ill-situated financially to pay the rates provided for shuck-
ers and pickers in the codes. At the same time, however, the earnings of*
most of these workers were scandalously low. The situation was ex-
traordinarily difficult; and up to the time of the suspension of the
codes no solution had heen found for it.
MIMLIUM WAGES lU THE CALIFOIffllA SAIU3IHB IMDUSTEY
The minimum wage 'schedule originally proposed for the California
Sardine Processing Industry would have raised the rate of 30 cents fji hour,
which \7as "being received ty atout five-sixths of the workers, to 35 cents,
or 16 2/3 per cent. Ultimately, as a result of the ahove-mentioned con-
troversy with regard to the restriction of hours, the minimum wage rate of
the National Code was reapplied to this Industry, and the increase was re-
duced to 10 per cent.
MIEIIiUi,! I7AGES lit THS CAIJKED SAIIilOl^ IlIDUSTRY
In the case of the Canned Salmon Industrj?- the situation with respect
to minimum compensation was complex. Before the institution of the N.R.A.
ahout 40 per cent of the shore workers had "been so-called "Orientals"
(chiefly Filipinos), who were employed and paid ty Chinese and Japanese
lator contractors, and not directly by the canning companies. The latter
paid the contractors for the canning of so many cases of salmon, and in
-Some instances did not even know what vrages the Oriental workers in their
establishments received.
Section 9 of Article V of the Canned Salmon Code abolished the con-
tract lahor system. A report made ''oy the deputy Administrator for Alaska
und.er date of April 16, 1935 (*), indicates that the abolition was effecr-
tive. It had already been suggested, in the economic report on the Cede,
submitted before the latter was approved, that the Industry would find
the change financially beneficial, because the contractors seemed in
practice to have been making excessive profits. This was confirmed by
the report just mentioned; and the fact gives a pretty reliable basis for
thinlcing that the Industry will not return to the contract labo'^ system,
now that the Code no longer exists.
Because the wages actually received by the Oriental workers before
the H.E.A. had been dependent on the Oriental contractors and had conse-
quently been lo?/, the minimum rate for indoor workers written into the
Canned Salmon Code represented an increase in earnings of about one-third
for practically the whole of the class.
THE MHJlILMr WAG-ES OF ElVlPLOYEE SALIvIQH FISHEBIvtBIT
The Canned Salmon Code provided (Article VI, Section 8, paragraph
(1) ) that within six weeks of the effective date the Industry should
malie recommendations for the minimum compensation of employee fishermen.
(*) This report is in the Deputy Administrator's file: Canned Salmon,
Comments.
9581
. -94-
Tlie term "employee fishermen" was not defined in the Code; "but an under-
standing was later reached that it should mea,n fishermen who worked with
craft or gear ovmed or leased "by a canning company. Such fishermen
sp'peax to constitute ahout three-fourths of the total number engaged in
supplying salmon canneries in Alaska. In the United States proper the
class is not important.
The piece rates at which these fishermen are paid vary with the
location of the canneries and the species of salmon; and the task of work-
ing out a minimum schedule proved e::ceedingly complex. For the sea,son of
1934 it was necessary to. put temporary rates into effect.
In advance of the 1935 season strenuous efforts were made to work
out a more satisfactory arrangement; hut up to the' time the codes were
suspended the prohlem had not "been satisfactorily solved. TThether a
solution could have "been found is doubtful. The evidence tends to indi-
cate that these fishermen had, as a class, heen pretty well paid. Excep-
tions seem to have "been infrequent and to have been due mainly to natural
deficiencies in the supply of salmon, which were financially injurious to
the canning companies as well as to the fishermen. There is a question
whether the loss of earnings resulting from such conditions would not
"better "be tal^en care of "by means of an insurance fund than "by a minimum
wage rate of the ordinary sort.
WAGES IIT THE IISW EUG-LAIID 5AHDIHS IxiDUSTRY
So little information is at present availa'ble with regard to pre-
cede wages in the New England Sardine Canning Industry as to make it
iii'ipractica'ble to express a conclusive opinion on the minimum rates written
into the supplementary Code. The impression is that while these rates
were not high, they were not unreasona'ble for a canning industry, the
esta'blishnents in which are located mainly in small communities, and in a
section of the country where the cost of living is moderate.
GOLIFLIAITCE WITH THE MIITIIJUIvI WAGE PROVISIOIilS
Eor the rea,aons alread",'' eiqplained the "bodies administering the
fishery codes were not in a position to do much to insure compliance with
the la"bor provisions. The widespread noncompliance in the case of the
piece workers in the Eresh Oyster and Blue Cra"b. Industries in the Chesa-
pealce area has alreadjr "been commented on.
With respect to compliance with the la'bor provisions of the other
fisher-'- codes there is little exact information. The impression is, how-
ever, that the situation was fairly satisfactory. In most of these
industries, indeed, the temptation to nonconTpliance was not great. They
had "been used to tolera'ble standards of wages, and their more prominent
mem"bers were in sympathy with the minimum wage policy of the Administra-
tion. There was not mucli occasion for attempts at drastic changes in
wages, save in the case of the Oriental workers in the Canned Salmon In-
dustry; gjid there the financial advantage .to the comrrjanies of the
a"bolition of the contract la'bor S3''sten seems to have more than offset the
cost of the substantial increase in earnings.
9581
-qp,.
EFFECT OP THE MIHIIuTJI/I WAG-S FHOV.ISIOl'TS
The information at present availaole permits only a fevj general
comments on the effect of the miniraiiin T,/age provisions of the fisherj'-
codes, individ-ually or in the aggrege.te, on the, total compensation of
enployees. The increases which it was estimated that certain of these
codes would "bring ahout ai-e shown in Tp.hle XSIX. The3'- were very rough
computations; hut there seems to "be no res,son for supposing they were
not approximately realized.
The only information now at hand with regard to the wages paid in
the Fishery Industry'" since the codes were suspended has "been obtained
orally from members of the former administrative "bodies. Leaving aside
the special situations in the Eresh Oyster, the Blue Crab ajid the
Menhaden Industries, these informants are unanimous in holding that the
miniLiun wage standards of the codes have been maintained without ntrnier-
otLS or important exceptions. ' Ox course, the upward turn in the prices
of fishery products since 1933 has facilitated such action. In the
case of the Canned Salmon Indu.stry, moreover, the eirrplcyment contracts
for the 1935 season had already been made before the codes v/ere, suspend-
ed.
9581
-96-
CHAPTER XII '
THADE PRiiCTIOE PROVISIOIIS
GENERAL OHAHA-CTERISTICS
In considering the trade practice provisions that were written into
the fishery codes it is desirahle to "bear three points in mind:
(1) The primary interest of most 'branches of the Industry centered
on provisions for the maintenance or control, direct or indirect, of the
prices of fishery products. The reasons for this have already heen point-
ed out. ■
(2) Host of the fishery codes were -out in forn for hearing after the
early t;/pical codes for manufacturing industries had "been approved, hut
while the prestige of the latter was still high. There was consequently
a tendency to copy provisions from existing codes, sometimes without much
reference to their suitability to the special conditions of the Pishery
Industry.
(3) There wo.s room for including in these codes some provisions de-
signed to deal with specialized prohlens of the Industry, hut for which
there had heen no need in other codes. This was done to a limited extent;
hut on the whole little thought was given, in writing these codes, to the
long-time needs of the fisheries themselves.
This is to be ercplained, of course, by the proponents' absorption in
their immediate difficulties and by the emphasis put by almost everyone at
the tim-e on the temporary and emergency aspects of the code program. If
another industrial organization analogous to the K.R.A. were to be estab-
lished and applied to the Pishery Industry, it would be highly desirable
to put greater stress on its special and long-time needs.
CLASS IPI GAT lOU OP PROYISIOIJS APP::::CTINC- PRICES
In the following discussion of the trade xaractice provisions of the
fisher?/ codes those relating directly or indirectly to the maintenance or
control of prices will be treated first. They may conveniently be dis-
cussed under the following headings:
(a) Control of production
(b) Destructive price cutting
(c) Open prices
(d) Sales below individual cost
(e) Sales below minirauia prices in emergencies
(f) Consignment sales
(g) Credit terns
(h) Bases of price quotations and settlements
(i) Allowances on customers' claims
(j) Diversion of brokerage
The Atlantic Mackerel Code was the only one containing a provision
for the control of production. The operation of this provision attracted
an amount of attention which was probably out of proportion to its real
importance. The fact that it did receive so much publicity, however, has
9581
■ made it seera desirr.'blo to disn.iss tlie mnttor sor; oTrlir.t fiilly in this re-
port. The provision is theiefure treated separately in Chapter XIV.
PH0HI3I'TI0I\r OF DSSiaUOTIi/E P:.?TG? CUT'j?T::IG
The IJational Pighc-";'' Code made it an -nfair trade practice to en-
gage in destructive price cub:ing. In its original form this provision
TiTOuld have given the lii'atlonal Code Authority almost i-nlimited potrers of
•enforcement. -As finally approvedj hovrever, the pronihition (Article VI,
Section, 1, paragraph (c)) vjs.s accomvDajaied h;" a clause (Article VIII, Title
D, Section 4) inposin.'r on the Divisional Executive Committees the duty,
on receipt of information from relialjle soiu-ces regarding alleged cases
of destructive price cutting; to hold hearings aid to report the results
to the Adrainistrator, \7ho might take, such action as he sa\7 fit.
So far as laio\Tn there was only one formal hearing of the kind. This
Yias held hy the Eiiiecutive Committee for the ITortjiern area of the Middle
Atlantic Preparing and \7holesaling Indu^jtr:'. as a result of a complaint
from the Suhcommittee for the lotel S\to":ply Section (*;, The Committee re-
ported that no conclusive e"vidence of delioerate destructive price cutting
had heen adduced, and there was consequently no occasion for action on the
part of the Administration .
The procedure, provided for safeguarded this destructive price cutting
clause' so thoroughly that it could scarcely, have done an^r harm. The
method of dealing with complaints, however, was so cijjuhersome tiis,t except
for its moral effect the provisions could hardl;r have .accomplished any
useful pur-QOse.
THE PILim OF OPaSi PaiC-JS
Provisions for the filing of open prices werewritten into the Can-
ned Salmon, the Fresh Oyster, the Wholesale Lohster, the California Sar-
dine, and the Blue Crah Codes (**), in vai-:^''ing forms, "before the promul-
gation of. Office, iiemorandnm ITo. 228. Several of the codes suhsequently
approved incorporated the open price provisions of the liemorandum (***),
Little detailed information is at present availahle with regard to
the working of th.ese open price provisions. The Chairman of the Canned
(*) The documents are in the Leputjr Adsninistrator ' s file, i.Iiddle Atleua-
tic Preparing and Wholesaling Code,, under the name of "Jalter T. Mc-
G-roory, who was then Chairman of the Sxibcommittee.
(**) Canned Salmon Code, article VII, Pule 1; Fi-esh Oyster Oo.de, Article
VI, Title A,' Section .1, (l); Wholesale Looster Code, Article VI,
. Section 1, (g) ;. Calif ornia ■ Sardine Code, Article VI, Section 1, (j);
' Blue Crah Code, Article VI, Section 1,. (l).
(***) Trout Farm.ing, Code Article VI, Section 1, (j); iTew England Prepar-
ing and Wholesaling Code Article VI, Section 1,. (d); l\Few England
Sardine Canning Code, Article VI, Section 1, (f); Midwest Preparing
and Wholesaling Code Article VI, Title A, Section 1, (h) ; Middle At-
lantic Preppxing and "Wholesaling Code, Article VI, Title A, Section
l,(a); processed or Hefined Fish Oil Code, Article VI, Section l,(q).
Saljaou Code Authority, in a letter to the Deputy Administrator under date
of ITfe'bruary 5, 1935, (*) stated tliat the open price provisions of that
Code had operated for the henefit of the Indiistry, and advised their main-
tenance. It was suhsequently asserted from private sources that these
provisions had "been extensively circumvented "by suhterfuge; hut the ac-
curacy of the statement cannot he vouched for.
The .Executive Committee of the .?resh Oyster Industry, under date of
July 26, 1934, applied for a stay of the price filing provisions of its
Code "in the Hdrth Atlantic, Chesapeake and Southern areas. The Pacific
coast merahers desired the provisions to he maintained. The stay was grant-
ed, in the form requested, on September 29 (**).
The diverse recommendations in these tvro ca,ses suggest that the de-
vice of open price filing may have heen relatively -^Torkahle in the canning
industries, hut less so in the preparing and T/holesaling trades. The chief
difficult^'-, in the case of the latter, arose from the variety and perish-
ahility of their -oroducts, and the consequent necessity of filing numerous
prices and of changing them frequently.
' Ho\7 far these ohstacles could Imve heen overcome hy better adminis-
tration is not entirely clear. All the Executive Committees concerned
"brought the requirements that "oriceshe filed to the attention of their
memhers, and there 'seems to have heen fairly general initial compliance.
The requirements that subsequent changes he filed, however, were never
well observed. The Committees, for reasons already exolained, did not
follow the matter up effectively. On the whole it seems unlikely that
open price filing could have been made to work satisfactorily in most of
the preparing and wholesaling trades.
FHOHIBITIOK OF SALES BELOW IiaiVISmL COST .
The Canned Saltoon Code contained. no provision with regard to sales
below nerahers' individual costs. Prohibitions of such sales, however, were
written into all the earlier supplements" to the ilational Code, including
those for the- Ere sh Oyster, the 'Tnolesale Lobster, the California Sardine,
the Atlantic Mackerel, and the Blue Crab Industries (***). These codes,
moreover, imposed on each of the Ejcecutive Committees concerned the duty
of formulating "an accounting system and methods of cost finding and/or
estimating capable of us by all members of the. ............. industrj?"",
(*) Deputy Administrator 's file: Canned Salmon Code, Coiimients Eolder.
(**) Administrative Order 308-A-9.
(=***) Eresh Oyster Code, Article YI, Title A, Section "l, (k) ;, TFliolesale
.■ Lobster: Code, Article YI, Section 1,, (h); California Sardine Code,
Article VI, Title A, Section 1, (l); Atlantic Mackerel Eishing Code;
Article VI, Section 1, (b); Blue Crab Code, Article VI, Section 1,
9581
The use of all these ooct fi'iding nystcins, ^hen aroroved, Tras to he
mandatory on the memhers of th.j inluGtries coacerned; in the sense that
the codes inade it an -onfair trj.de practice to sell helo'T indiA'-idiial cost
as determined "p-'arsuaivb to the "orincJT.lec" of the systeiis. It had he- ^
come evident .at an early stage that tno r. ass of fishery enterprises were
pec-uliarly ill-fitted to ha-"-e rigid or co.'ivyi.ic.ated methods of cost find-
ing imposed on thenio The lanr^jage just qu'Jted represented an effort, in
response to this sj.tuation, to impart a:i element of fZ.exihility to the
administration of the code provisions prohihiting sales helow individual
cost.
Proposed cost finding ST/stems were suhmitted hy the Executive Com-
mittees fcr the ITresh Oyster,, the 7;holesale Lohster, the California Sar-
dine and the Atlantic Mackerel rndV'stries,. Of these the system of the
California Sardine Industry alone was approved for temporary use. The
others were still awaiting action ty the Adi'unistration at the time the
codes were suspended„
EFFECT 0? T'flB SAL'^^S B?.LC^ COST P3.Q\'ir:7- GITS
Uo detailed information is ava:l2o"ble i,7ith respect. to the use made hy
the Eicecutive' Committee of the California Sardine Industry of its cost find-
ing system. The Committee steadily maintained that the system, and the
prohihition of sales helow individual cost in connection with which it was
used, had proved highly henoficial. When, 'at' the hoginning of 1935, the
California Mackerel Caiining Industry, which has substantially the same
memhership as the Sardine Industry, applied for a supplementary fishery
code, it Stated that i't .would he unwilling to assent to any instrument that
did not ■ include a sales'-helow cost provision. No corrohoration of these
statements was suhmitted; "but in'ctny'case it would prohahly he impossihle
to distinguish the effect of the' code provision, if it had any, from the
-iinprovement 'in the prices of the Industry's products due to other causes.
Since no cost finding system ?/as approved for aJiy of the other indus-
tries- whose supplementary codes contained prohibitions of sales helow in-
dividual costs, no yardsticks were' available for determining whether the
provisions had been violated' or not. As far as kn.own, the Executive Com-
mittees concerned took no active steps to enforce them; and it is uiilikely
that there was any serious effort at compliance.'
MiHiivraivi COSTS Aim peices m mvisr&eijgies ■ ■ ■
The Atlantic llackerel Code, besides a prohibition of sales helow in-
dividual cost, contained, in the older form suggested for use in codes prior
to the promulgation of Office Memorandum Uo. 228, a provision (Article VIII,
Title C, Section 1, paragraph (h)) which permitted the Executive Comm.ittee
to determine, suh.ject to the approval of the Administrator, the existence
of an emergency due to destructive price cutting, and to fix a lowest rea-
sonable cost helow which the Industry's product might not he sold. The. at-
tempt which was -made to apply this provision will he .discussed in. Chapter
XIV, in connection with the control of the mackerel catch under the same
Code.' , . •
After the promulgation of Off ice .Memorandum Ho. 228 all the supple-
mentary fishery codes 'incorporated its provisions with reforence to
9581
-100-
destriictive' -irice cutting: and an emergency "basis foi- ;orices.
T'.:.e . atte::nt to olstain avjproval of a, lo'^est reasonaDle cost for the
I'.iacl:erel Sisliery involved an interpretation of the term "emergency" that
d,iffered -::ld.elj from the ujiderstandin^: of the Administration, Whether
the csxie ■"■.-Gtild have "been the. case in other branches of the Industry it is
imoo.GSible to say, since no similar application '7as, ma.de under the codes
that contained the clauses stipulated in Office Memorandum Wo, 228,
If the code system ha.d been continued in effect, however, it seems
likely tlmt an. effort, to a"TOly the emergency price provision of the -Hew
Engls^nd Sr.idine Code would lia.ve been made in the sumner of 193,5. In
that case the Industry's understanding of the term emergency seemed not
to differ v;idely from the Administration's intemreta^tion; and it mif;ht
consequent!]'- b_ave been possible to approve a temporary -Drice floor. The
matter, however, was never brought to an issue,
TH3 F.aOEI3IgIOW MW BECrllLATIOI OP CGllSIGmiEHT SALES
A substantial proportion of the small enterprises that make up a
grea.t pa,rt of the Fishery Ind-ustrj'- are located at points remote from the
larger, centers of the wholesaie trade. Since these concerns deal mainly
in ver3r. T)erishable products,- and since, in the case of the primary pro-
ducers, they are absent much of the time on fishing trips and out of,
touch. Y/i,th the marke,t,s in which their products must be disposed of, it
is liard for- them to sell at, fixed prices knoi,m in advance. It has con-
sequently been common for fishermen, and also for many concerns in the
preparing and wholesaling trades - such as live lobster dealers, ojrster,
crab and shrimp packers, and small fresh fish wholesalers at outlying
ports - to Tiake their shipments to the main wholesaling centers on con-
signment, ■■■ ■ •
As. the prices of fishery products declined from 192S.to 1933, a
large proportion of such shippers became convinced tlict this mode . of
making their sales was accentuating the deflation. In a majority of the
supplement ar]!- fishery codes, consequently, there were included provisions
which) invarjj-ing form, prohibited or regulated consignment selling, (*)
EEOULIiiR ggJCTICES IK HAITOLBtg COHS I GCTIvEKTS
There is no doubt ths^t the procedure followed by the wholesalers in
several large centers, in accoimting for the sale of' goods shipped to them
on consignment, has been peculiar, and not in accordance with the strict
law on. the subject,-
The vdiolesalers in the. Pulton Market in New York City have univer-
sally assumed a right to .buy in such shipments for their own account, for
T*l (Eresh Oyster, Article VI, Section 1, (e); iTholesale Lobster, Arti-
cle-'tl, Section 1, (e); Blue , Crab, Article VI, Section 1, (b); Trout
Eejrning, Article VI, Section 1, (a); New England Preparing and TThole-
saling. Article VI, Section 1, (k); Middle Atlantic Preparing and
Wholesaling, Article VI, Section 1, (h), (r), and (v); Northwest
and Alaska Preparing and Wliolesaling, Article VI, Title A, Section 1,
(j).
9581
-1 Jl-
the pujrpose of mailing iro s-necial o.ssort.ients of species aiid sizes. Wlien
they have taken over consi-^rjiieiit shipments in this manner, they h^,ve ac-
counted for them to the shippers a,t the average nrices "bro-ught "by the ^
SDecies and sizes concerned on the dr.ys on ^diich the transactions occur-
red. It is understood tha.t this practice of averaging returns on consign—
ment shipments has also "been com}non in Pbiladel-ohia. In the Chicago
market the wholesalers ^appear to have accoiinted to fishermen viho shipped
them on consignment from the Great Lakes ports at aroitrary prices v;hich
they regarded as fair,
Wlien ohjections were raised to these practices, the dealers invaria-
hly contended that it T7as imp.racticci.'ble to dispose individually of the
sma.ll mirced lots shipped to them "by many fishermen and 'by small whole«.
salers oi- "oackers at ou.tlying ports, a;id to account for them in accord-
ance uith the strict law relabing to consignment sales.
The question is a complicated one; "bat there is undouhtedly much
truth in the dealers' content icn„ The desirable course would pro"bal)ly
he to modify the law of consigniient sales for applica-tion to transactions
in these perisliahle products. If, however, such pro,ctices as buying- in
and avera^'inf; on consignment shii^ments of fishery products were to be
legalized, a„s the Middle Atlantic Preparing and ITholesaling Industry has
persistently urged, some power of supervision shoiild be lodged with an
impartiaol av.thority, perhaps the Btireau of Pisheries. Recourse to civil
suit or to complaint to the Federal Trade Coinraission is of no vaiue to
the mass of fishermen. Some simplified adrainistrative procedure to check
abuse of the extended powers of the dealers who act as agents in these
cases would be called foro
EFESCT or CONSIGIlviElv'T SILLLIHG 01\T miCSS
To what extent, however, if at all, these practices in connection with
consignment shipments resulted in poorer retijxns to the shippers tha,n
would hs,ve been the case if the latter could have kept themselves iriformed
of t'lie state of the great wholesale markets, and had then sold at fixed
jjrices, it is impossible to ssjy from the data now available. The matter
has been discussed with representatives of the trades concerned; but their
opinions were found to vary widely, and it is doubtful whether they really
had data on which to base reliable conclusions. It seems likely, on the
whole, that neither the practice of selling on consignment itself, nor the
wholesalers' methods of disposing of such shipments and of accounting for
them, ma.de much difference in the prices received. Till more data are
available, however, it is impossible to be certa.in.
EPE3CT Qg THE PROVISIONS RELATIInIG TO COWSIGM/IENTS
In the light of the foregoing statements the provisions of the fisli*.
ery codes which prohibited or restricted sales on consignment were at best
not easy to enforce. Whether desirable or not, they proposed to change
practices having a basis in conditions that made difficult both sales at
fixed prices and consignment sales in strict accordance with the lax? on
the subject. Since the conditions governing the ac'jninistration of the
fishery,'' codes were imfavorable to the enforcement of provisions that v.'ere
new to the menbers concerned, and that affected adversely their interests
9581
-102-
or their convenience, there \7as little ground for expecting much suc-
cess in ootaining connliance xiith the provisions relating to consignnents.
The direct evidence now available is slight; tut as far as it goes it
indicates tliat , in the ahsence of systematic enforcement hy either the
code bodies or the Administration, little or no attention was paid them.
9581
-103-
CHAPIER XIII
TRADE •PHACT ICE PHOVISIONS: COlTTrilUES
THE H^OHIIilTIOiJ 0? DISQPJMIWATORY PRICES
The National Fishery Code contained (Article YI , Section 1, para^
graph (d) a provision of a t-^pe frequently met with, which made it an
unfair trade practice "to secretly pay or allow rebates, refunds, crev.its,
or unearned discounts,, either. in the form of money or otherwise; or to
secretly e::tend to certain pui-cliasers special services or privileges",
Forne.l complaint of the violation of this provision was made in at
least one ca.se, which cane to the attention of the Compliance Office at
Charleston, South Carolina (*). The accused wholesaler defended himself
on the ground that he had quoted high prices to the complainant "because
the la^tter had proved a had credit risk. On the tentative ass-umption that
this was a fact the Compliance Office, sup"^orted by the Deputy Adminis trac-
tor, held tliat the above quoted provision had not been violated. So far
as known the ' complainant did not press the matter, and the facts were not
further investigated. The position taken by the compliance office and
the Deputy was apparently reasonable,
THE REGIILATION OE CREDIT TERMS
The Eresh Oyster, the f/holesale Lobster, the California Sardine and
the New England, Middle Atlantic and Noi'thwest Preparing and Wholesaling
Codes (**), all contained provisions limiting the periods for which credit
might be given by members of the industries concerned. In all these cases
the complaint was that during the depression the granting of long credit
teriTis load lieen carried to extreines by the less stable dealers, \7ith a re-
sult equivalent to -undercutting prices of the more conservative firms,
BASES OP PRICE QTJOTATIOl'S AKD SETTL3t£EITTS
Most of the fishery codes (***) also contained, in slightly varjdng
forms, jprovisions making it "an unfair trade practice to quote prices or
make settlerfents on any basis except f .cb, shipping point or cost ajid
(*) Deputy Administrator's file: National Fishery Code, Complaints,
(**) Presh Oyster, Art, VI, Title A, Sec. 1, (b); Wholesale Lobster, Art,
VI, Sec. 1, (b); California Sardine, Art. VI, Title A, Sec. 1, (i);
New England .Preparing and liilholesaling, Art. VI, ^Sec. 1, (b); Middle
■ -Atlantic Preparing and Wholesaling, Ai't , VI, Title A, Sec. 1, (n);
Northwest and Alaslra Preparing and Wiiolesaling, Art. VI, Title A,
Sec. 1,, (i). ^ • ■
(***)presh Oyster, Article VI, 'Title A, Section 1, (a); Wholesale Lobster,
Article VI, Section 1, (a); Blue Crab, Article VI, Section 1, (a,);
Trou.t Farming,, Artrcle' VI, . Section 1, (h); New England Sardine Can-
ning, Article VI, Section. 1, (b); New England Preparing and Whole-
saling, Article VI, Section 1, (a); Middle Atlantic Preparing and
Wholesaling, Article VI, Title A, Section 1, (g); Oyster Shell
Crushers, Article VI, Section 1, (k).
9581
-104-
freight destination. In the case of quotations or settlements on the
latter oasis it was also required, in some cases, that the cost of pack-
ages and original ice "be included. The ohject was, of course, to prevent
concealed price reductions as a resu]-t of the quotation of delivered
prices that did not include all major items of packing and transportation
cost,
ALLOITMCIES OR CLAIMS BY CUSIOIIBES
The Blue Cra"b, the Trout Farming and the Midwest Preparing and
Wholesaling Codes (Article VI, Section 1, paragraph (g), in each case)
contained -oi-ovisions limiting the allowances that might he made "by deal«.
ers as a result of claims from customers that shipments were not up to
st)ecified or standard quality. In their original form most of the other
preparing and wholesaling codes contained similar clauses; and a good
deal of effort vras expended in attempting to put the latter into a shape
that v/ould sa-tisf;/ the reasonahle desires of the proponents, without
exposing tliem to serious ohjection. It is ohvious that, in the case of
commodities as perishable as fresh fishery products, there is a strong
temptation for purchasers, when the market has turned against them, to
make unjustified claims on sellers, and tha,t it is very hard for the
latter to be sure of the facts.
Nothing specific is at present Icnown of the effect of these pro-
visions relating to credit terms, to price bases, or to allowances on
claims. In the absence, however, of systematic efforts to enforce' the
fishery codes on the part either of the code bodies or of the adminis-
tration, it is improbable tliat they r'ere generally complied with,
THE DIl/SRSIOlI OF HROKEEAGE
Almost all the wholesaling and processing codes contained provisions
prohibiting the diversion of brokers' fees or commissions to customers
(*), The question nas regarded as particularly Important by the canning-
industries, since the proportion of canned fish and shellfish sold by
the processors through brokers is very large. The preparing and whole-
saling trades, however, vrere also interested in the question.
Little or nothing specific is known of the effect of these provi-
sions except in the case of the Canned Salmon Code, This Industry
attached special importance to the diversion of brokerage, because of
the e::tent to which large buyers of its product, especially chain grocer^''
organizations, had made a practice of placing their orders, whether direct
or through brokers, with producers who agreed to make what were in ef-
fect price reductions 'by permitting part or all of the customary com-
mission to be deducted on payment of the invoices,
(*) Fresh Oyster, Article VI, Title A, Section 1, (f); California Sar-
dine, Article VI, Title A, Section 1, (h); Blue Crab, Article VI,
Section l,(c); Hew England Preparing'and Wholesaling, Article VI,
Section 1, (n); New England Sardine Canning, Article VI, Section 1,
(e); Middle Atlantic Preparing and Wholesaling, Article VI, Title A,
Section 1, (j)j Northwest and Alaska Preparing and Wholesaling,
Article VI, Title As Section 1, (g); Canned Salmon, Article VII,
Eule 3.
9581
-105-
It seens likely that this situation really reflected a basic change
in the methods of distrilDuting canned salmon which, while -unfavorable to
the interests of some brokers and producers, could not be reversed or
arrested "oy means of the code provisions anproved for the purpose. The
Canned SaJraon Code Authority for some time made conscientious efforts to
enforce the prohibition. Diff icul.ties were created, however, by the
status of the brokers with reference to the Code, by uiicertainties as to
the proper treatment of the patronage dividends of cooperative purchasing
organizations of varying degrees of legitimacy, and above all by the in-
fluence e-erted by the large chain grocery organizations as buyers of the
Industry's products.
The Code Authority finalljr reconnended a stay of the provision and
the application was granted on May 6, 1935 (*).
Exce;-)t, possibly, in' the case of the California Sardine Industry,
it is unlikeljr that the other provisions prohibiting the diversion of
brokerage were generally complied with,
HIOVISIOITS FOR TH3 BEICEPIT OF HlIIvIARY ERODUCERS
Since only one supplementary code was approved for a fishery proper,
comparatively few trade practice provisions were designed for the s,d-
vantage of the primary producer. A;oart from the provision for the con-
trol of the Atlantic mackerel catch, hoi^ever, there were a few s-oeoial
provisions for the benefit of fishermen, which were of course peculiar to
these codes,
FAIMBNT FOR PURCHASES FROM FISHEBI-TEM
At the public hearing on the Fresh Oyster Code testimony was of-
fered to the effect that, at least in the Mississippi and Louisiana area,
it had been common, during the depression, for dealers to delay payment
for oysters purchased from -fishermen, or to fail to make such payment at
all {**) , As a result a provision was inserted in the Code mentioned,
which made it an ijnfair trade practice to fail to pay for piirchases from
fishermen on delivery, or without f-ornishing a written acknowledgment
containing all information necessary to an understanding of the transac-
tion, and agreeing to make payment not later than 10 days after delivery.
The Labor Adviser followed this matter up, and at subsequent hear-
ings on sirrplementarj'- codes endeavored to obtain evidence as to the con-
ditions existing with respect to payments to fishermen. It did not ap-
pear that the abuses described as rife in parts of the Fresh Oyster In-
dustry were at all general, though it must be remembered that most of the
testimony came from purchasers and not from fishermen themselves. The
Labor Adviser, however-, requested the inclusion in all the other whole-
saling and processing codes of a similar provision; and this was agreed'to
(*) Adjninistrative Order 429-20.
(**) Transcript of Public Hearing on the Fresh Oyster Code, page 181-132.
9581
-106-
without nuch controversy. (*)
Notliing sioecific is Icnoi.^m of the effect of these provisions. The
adrainistro.tive bodies of the wholesaling and processing industries had
little or no incentive to lool': for violations. Prices had turned uprard,
and there he/', prohahly ceased to he much occasion for fishermen to malce
complaints. At the same time the provisions in question were proper ones,
which it v.'o.s prohahly desirahle to have in the fishery codes on general
principles,
PROVISIOIS RBLATIJ\TG TO ABUSES IN THE ADMIKISTRATIOM OP LAYS
?LefGr:-nce has already heen made, Chapter VII to the ahuses alleged
to exist in the adjninistration of fishing lays or share agreements. In
the Atlantic Ma.ckerel Pishing Code there was included a provision (Arti-
cle VI, Section 1, paragraph (e) ), which made it sn unfair trade practice
"to accept, in connection with any lay or other profit-sharing entei'prise,
any gratuity, payment, allowance, rebate, refund, credit, or unearned
discount, e::cept as lorovided for in the lay or other profit-sharing enters-
prise agreement." It was proposed to '-^rite the same lorovision into other
supplemente,ry codes for the primary loroducing industries. It is not linown
that these abuses were common in the Atlantic Mackerel Pishing Industry;
and no specific information is available as to the effect of the provi-
sion in that case. It is probable that no comrjlaints on the subject were
made during the life of the Code,
PEOVISIOUS '5ELATI1\[& TO THE COMPETITION OP It/gORTS
Previous reference has also been made in Chapter II to the interest
of the primary producing industry in provisions to restrict the competi-
tion of imported fishery products from Canada or Japan, under the author-
ity of Section 3 (e) of Title I of the Recovery Act.
Tlie National Fishery Code (Article VIII, Title D, Section 5) made it
a duty of the divisional Executive Committees to "inform the Administra-
tor of facts concerning the importation into the United States of Prod- '■
uct^ :. conpetitive with products of the Industry in substantial quantities
or in increasing ratio to domestic production, " and to "urge proper ac-
tion for the purpose of correcting such condition". In the case of the
Atlantic liackerel Pishery the competition of imports has not been of great
importance in recent years, and no provision on the subject was inserted
in the Code. It was intended, however, to include such clauses in the
sup■^lementar;'• codes for other primary producing industries. These pro-
posed pi-ovisions differed from the one just quoted from the National Code
(*) Presh Oyster, Article VI, Title A, Section 1, (d); Wholesale Lobster,
Article VI, Section 1, (d); Ca3.ifornia Sardine, Article VI, Title A,
Section 1, (n); Blue Crab, Article VI, Section 1, (i); New Englejid
Preparing and Wholesaling, Article VI, Section 1, (t); New England
Sardine Canning, Article VI, Section 1, (p); Middle Atlantic Pre-
paring and Wholesaling, Article VI, Title A, Section 1, (l); North-
Uest and Alaska Preparin-^ and Wholesaling, Article VI, Title A,
Section 1, (f); Pishery Industry, Article VI, Section 1, (n),
9581
-107-
onl7 in tlir.t they specifically authorized the Executive Committees con-
cerned to invoke-'Section 3 (e).-
COMPLAIiTTS iilD EROCEEDIMGS WITH EESFBCT TO IMPORT COMPETITION -*
The AiTx'ic-altural Adjustment Adi-QinistrG,tion, when it had chs.rge cf the
fishery codes, and subsequently the W.E.A., and the Tariff Com:.iission,
recei-ved a considerahle nijmher' of complaints ij^ith respect to the compe-
tition of imported fishery products. The complainants irere advised that
if theyrrere operating under approved codes or the President's Heen-^loy-
ment Agreement they might make formal representations under Section 3:
(e). The only such complaint that was followed through, however, was a
minor one, filed on Jiily 24, 1934, "by three producers of pearl essence -
a liquid made from fish scales and used principally in the manufacture of
imits.tion pearls and of lacquers. It was decided to take no action.
Two other petitions, relating respectively to imports of canned
and of frozen tuna, were docketed for relief under Section 3 (e). Both
these, however, were withdrawn - the former on August 17, 1934, as a re-
sult of tha increase of the duty from 30 to 45 per cent ad valorem,, af-
ter an investigation "by the Tariff Commission under the provisions of
Section 336 of the Tariff Act of 1930, and the latter "because the Jap-
anese ejnorters had expressed a v/illingness to limit, their shipments to
the United States, in view of the poor tuna catcli in Japan in 1934 (*).
OQWaEaVATIOM PROYISIOI'TS IN THE FISHERY CODES
Reference has already heen made in Chapter II to difficulties cau.sed
"by the inclusion in fishery codes of provisions designed to assist in
the conservation o-f the natural supply of the Industry'' s products. The
conservation provision of the ^.^olesale Lohster Code merely incorpora.ted
the suhstajice of laws already in existence in some or all of the princi-
pal producing states. The Executive Co^amittee of the Industry was not
in a position to render su"bstantial assistance in enforcing these measures;
"but they led to no serious controversies.
The fact that the prohihition of the taking of sponge cra"bs (**),
which was inserted in the Blue Cra"b Code, played a considerable part in
wrecking the administration of the latter has already heen mentioned in
Chapter II. The life cycle and ha"bits of the species are such tha.t the
sponge cra^hs are taken commercially only from the waters of the State of
"Virginia, The writing of the prohibitory clause into the Code, there-
fore, had tlie aiopearance of discriminating against the interests of tlia.t
State snd in favor of Maryland. ■, The provision was desira"ble in princi-
ple; hut its inclusion, under all the circumstances, must "be regarded as
dou"btful judgment,
(*) The statements in this section are taken from a memorandum of llov—
em"ber 20, 1935, on imports of fish. and fishery products, from the
Eoreign Trade Studies Section, and its enclosures. The memorand-om
is in the file of the Fisheries Unit Industry Study, Foreign Trade
Polder,
(**) Female cra'bs in the egg- "bearing stage, ■
9581
-108-
PROVISIorS DESIGNED TO ESTABLISH aHAIiES OH STAITOARDS
The first of the Deputy Administrators ifho had charge of the fish-
ery codes, as a member of the staff of the Bureau of Fisheries, was
strongl3r interested not only in the conservation of the products of the
Industry, hu-t also in the- estahlishment of grades and standards of quality.
In this he v/as vigorously supported "by the Cons-jiners' Advisory organiza^
tions, at first of the A, A. A. and subsequently of the N.R.A.
The pre-oaring and whole salini^; trades and the proponents of the ¥.d^
tional Code, who were largely wholesalers, assented to provisions ob-
ligp-ting their administrative bodies to establish grades or standards
only \7ith reluctance. They were nearly or quite unanimous in holding
the grading of fresh fishery products, beyond certain distinctions of
size a,nd the determination of a lot as fit or unfit for human consump-
tion, to be impracticable, ' because of the time and labor involved and
the difficulty of applying objective standards in distinguishing the
grades. The question was discussed'at length (*) at ' the hearing on the
Natione.1 Fishery code, however; and the proponents, somewhat under pro»-
test, finally assented to Article YIII, Title B, Section 1, paragraph
(f), V7hich obligated the National Code Authority and the divisional Ex-
ecutive Committees to investigate the feasibilitjr and wisdom of establishj-
ing a grading system.
The Eresh Oyster Industry voluntarily included in its Code a schedule
of size s;oecifications. The Chairman of the" Exec-Jtive Committee later
stated unofficially, however, that considerable doubt head arisen as to
the' fea.sibility of appl3'"ing the schedule in. -practice.
The proponents of the Blue Crab Code voluntarily included a schedule
of grades and standards for all products of the Industr;^. To what extent
this provision would have improved the situation if the Code had been
normall:'- effective over any considerable period it is impossible to sa;^.
As things were, the schedule, like the rest of the 'Sode, cannot realljr
be said ever to have been in effect.
At a meeting of the National Code Authority early in June, 1934, i-e-
newed doubts of the feasibility of establishing grades for fresh fishery
prodticts were expressed. The Code Authority indicated its intention of
proceeding cautiousljr to discharge the duty imposed on it; but if any
other steps were taken there appears to be no record of them. It is be-
lieved that the conditions, already discussed, which rapidly destroj-ed
the effectiveness of the National Code Authority as an administrative
body prevented further action.
At the hearings on the codes for the general preparing and whole-
saling trades the representative of the Cons-umers' Advisory Board con-
tinued to raise the question of establishing grades or standards: and
ultimately provisions on the subject were \7ritten into all these supple-
mentary documents. In the standard form finally worked out this clause
obligated the industries to appoint committees to collaborate with a:p-
propriate Federal agencies and with the National Code Authority toward
establishing standards of quality, and to submit their findings and re-
commendations to the Administrator within 60 days after the effective
dates of the codes,
(*) Transcri-ot of Public Hearing on the Fishery Code, passim,
9581 ^ _
-109-
Becan.se of the conditions hampering the organization of these E::-
ecutive Coixaitees and the development of their work, however, none of
thera a-.Toears to have heen in a position to comply v/ith this requirement,"
MINOR nZRADE PliACTICE PROVISIONS
The fishery codes contained some trade practice provisions, in
addition to those descrioed ahove , which represented genuine attempts to
deal uith "orohlems of the Industry, hut nhich v/ere of secondary importa,nce
and cann.ot "be discussed in this report. Apart from these there were a.lso
a rather long list of minor provisions, which were largely copied from
earlier codes, hecause of a va;jue "belief in their desirahility,
The'qe cla.uses -oenalized such o"bviously undesira'Dle , and in part al~
readj- illegal, practices as mishranding, commercial hrioery, the intimida-
tion of cor.petitors, the use of false measures, the rendering of dishon-
est accomits of sales, etc. Sone other provisions of the class he.d ''oeen
.of more or less consequence to the manufacturing industries w'hich haxl OD-
tained codes at an earlier stage, "but "^'ere of little practical importance
to the IPishery Industr;^. This was true, for e::amole, of the regulation
of -ujiearned service pajr;;ients and of the prohihition of com"bination sales
(Article VI, Section 1, paragra;phs (e) and (f) of the National Code),
Fnile it is inadvisa"ble to condemn all these minor trade practice
provisions offhand, it is fairly certain that if the greater part of them
had heen omitted the f isherjr codes would have "been somewhat more worka'ble
than they were.
9581
CHAPTER nV
THE COITEOL 0? THE ATLAl'TIC LIACKEEEL CATCH
Tlii^ chapter has 136611 reserved for the discussion, in soiae detail,
of the control of production provision of the Atlantic Liackerel Eishing
Code, of its industrial, technical and statistical 'bachground, and of its
effects.
THE i.IACEEBEL SEASON AMD THE PORTS OE 3:Al\]I)II'ia
The vessels which talce atout five-sixths of the Atlantic mackerel
catch are ovmed mostly in Gloucester, Masse^chusetts. This fleet starts
its mackerel fishing in southern waters ahout the middle of April, To
tegin \7ith the catch is landed in New Jersey or at l\fev7 York City. The
schools of mackerel, however, move north as the season advances; and dur-
ing the latter part of liay and in June considerable quantities are landed
at New Bedford and other ports in southern New England, During the height
of the season, which reaches its peak in Augu.st or Septerater, the catch
is landed chiefly in Boston, The fleet operates into December, but after
October the quantities landed are compa,ratively small. During the winter
the same vessels engage in the southern trawl fishery off the Virginia
capes; but these operations were not governed by the Mackerel Code,
THE ERESH. EBBEZING MI) SALTING IVIARKETS AND THE ILiPORT TRADE
The mackerel catch of April, May and June, and the bulk of that of
July and August are sold for fresh consumption, A small proportion of
the midsummer landings are put into cold storage for the winter, A large
part of the catch of late August and September, however, when the fish
are most plentiful, is sold for sa,lting. Salt mackerel, though a much
less important commodity than it used to be, is still a staple winter
foodstuff in the South.
Up to a dozen years ago 80 per cent or more of the country's mack-
erel consumption consisted of salt imiDorts from Europe, After the pas-
sage of the Eordney-McCumber Tariff Act in 1922, however, the imports
both of salt and of fresh mackerel became so small as to cease to in-
fluence the market to any considerable extent.
THE VOLUIvIE OE THE CATCH
During the dozen years preceding the war the annual Atlantic mack-
erel landings at all ports varied from 4,000,000 to 17,000,000 pounds.
In 1916 and 1917, when the European supply of salt mackerel was largely
cut off. The domestic catch rose to 20,000,000 o-r 25,000,000 pounds. In
1921 and 1922 it had again sunk 7,000,000 or 8,000,000. In 1925, how-
ever, it j-umped suddenl;?- to 34,000,000 pounds, in comparison with 18,-
000,000 during the year preceding. Erom 1926 to 1932, except in two
sub-normal j'-ears, it ran in the neighborhood of 45,000,000 pounds.
This recent recovery in the Atlantic mackerel catch accompanied an
increase in the landings of groundfish, which was due mainly to the
development of the New England packaged fillet trade, and to the re-
sulting exroansion in shipments of fresh fish to the Middle T7est,
9581
-Ill-
Mackerel itself has not been filleted, save to a linited extent in verv
recent jeprs; but riJi additional- market for it was created "by the enlerg-
ed demand and the realtively increased prices for cod and haddock, »
Ihe n-uriber of vessels in the main ma.ckerel fleet hp.d been aroinid
100 Just before and during the war, but fell to 50 or 60 in 1921, 1922
and 1923, In 1925 the nninbGr iras again more than 100. In 1928 it "ms
about 175 and in 1929 nearljr 250, I>aring the depression, hov^ever, the
nujBber fell off considerablv, and in 1934 and 1935 was again not much
over 100.
IKS Pill CD OF MACKBaEL TO THE FISIIEa/iEII
The increase in the mackerel catch from 1925 was inevitably a.c—
companied by a drop in the price to the fishermen. The decline was prob-
ablj accentua,ted, moreover, by the relatively large number of vessels in
the fleet. The catch of 1932 was the largest since 1885, and brought
the lowest average price on record (*) - 1,65 cents vev pound, as com-
pared with 3.72 cents for landings onljr tv/o per cent smaller in 1929.
This price represented a decline over the three years of about 55 per
cent,
THE COSTS OF THE I/IACKEBEL FLEET '
In the face of this decline in the "orice of its product the oper-
ating e^qi^ense of the mackerel fleet fell off from 1929 to 1932 by only
about 22 per cent, ¥/hile its overhead exoense remained -oractically un-
changed. . • ' ,
In the summer, of 1934 cost data, were obtained for a group of 12
typical mackerel vessels (**)., which sold their 1932 ca.tch for a gross
total of $89,935. The operatintT e:tpense- of these vessels wa„s $37,700,
or 42 per cent of the gross. ' Of the remaining net stock of $52,235 the
vessel o'Tners received in some cases one-half and in others one-third,
depending on the lay in the use. Altogether the owners took $26,501,
Against this gross profit there had to be charged, before depre-
ciation, overhead costs amo'binting to $40,491, More than half ^his item
represented repairs and maintenance and more than half the remainder
marine and liability insurance. Actually, of course, there was a heavy
deficit. Insurance was in mai).?/ cases reduced or allowed to lapse, and
the bonuses to which the captains of these vessels are entitled, in ad-
dition to their shares in the lay, were not paid,
(*) Hecords from which the prices received by mackerel fishermen can
be determined go ba.ck only to 1901, 'Estimates of the qiiantity landed,
however, have been made back to 1804.
(**) These data were assembled ^oy the Secretar;- of the Executive Com-
mittee of the Atlantic Mackerel Industry, at the instance of the Admin-
istration Member. They are in the file of the Fishery Unit: Atlantic
Mackerel Fishing Code, Statistics Folder. The analysis indicated in
the text wa.s made by the writer.
9581
-112-
To this total of out-of-pocket o^7ner' s e:rpeuse a fvi-11 allowance for
depreciation, calculated ty a uniform formula on the "basis of the "best
practice of the We;? England fisheries, would have added $31,530, In
1932, hov/ever, not one of these vessels earned any depreciation.
EAaivTIHGS OF MCK5REL FISHEBI/ISN IK 1932
Ihese 12 mackerel vessels were manned, in 1932 by a total of 132
persons, who received an average of $192 apiece for practically continuous
service during the season of ahout 30 vreeks. These men earned perhnps
as much more while their vessels were engaged in the southern trawl fish-
ery during the winter; hut the average compensation of approximately
$6,40 per week for the mackerel fishing season was of course far "below
any reasonable ste^ndard, even after allowing for the fact that the men
received their ovm food during the 30 week period.
THE GEliESIS OF THE PROPUCTIOE COJIIROL PEOVISIOHS
With this hackground it is not hard to see why, when the National
Hecovery Act came up for discussion in the spring of 1933, a movement
should have "been started "by the owners of these vessels to o"btain a code,
with provisions which they believed wouJ.d resu.lt in raising the price
of their product. Such a code was su"braitted, and a hearing - the first
on Bjij fishery code - held early in August, Ovdng to the general condi-
tions which delayed action on these codes, hov/ever, nothing was settled
till the following spring.
In the meantime, during the 1933 season, the industrj/- e>:perimented
with several successive voluntary agreements for the control of the catch.
None of these was effective for onj considera"ble time. Collectivelj'-,
however, they were the controlling factor in reducing the catch of the
main mackerel fleet from 36,000,000 pounds in 1932 to 21,000,000 for .
the follo\7ing season; and this reduction \7as of course associated with
a .corresponding increase in the unit price.
As the opening of the 1934 season approached, however, the issue was
raised -again » and on May 3 a supplementary Code containing a provision
for the regulation of the catch was approved.
THE PURPOSES AND MTHQDS OF THE CONTROL
The purpose of this regulation was stated in the Code (Article "^rill.
Title C, Section..!, paragra,ph (c) ) to "be :
"To conserve natural resources "by the elimination of conditions
leading to gluts in the mackerel market and consequent wastage through
dumping of mackerel at sea, and "by the development of the maximum
usable yield compatible with future productivity through prevention
of the take of small mackerel during those portions of the season
when larger sizes are available to supply the demand for mackerel,
and to rehabilitate the mackerel fishery by. maintaining a reason-
able balance betvreen the production of mackerel and the consumption
of mackerel, and by assuring minimum prices for mackerel not below
the cost of production."
9581
-113- .. ■;
Hiere are understood to have "been cases of the diunping of mackerel
in the face of the large supply and the low prices of the^l932 and 19,33
seasons, hut there is no precise information as to .the qiaantities thus *
wasted. It is probably fair to say that the putting of conservation as
a primary justification for the writing of these control provisions into
the Maclcerel Code was a prete;:t, though a legitimate one as far as it
went.
The Code further provided (Article VIII, Title C, Section 1, para-
graphs (c), (d) and (e) that the Executive Committee of the Industry
should fromtime to time estiraate the consumer demand for mackerel, talc-
ing all important factors into consideration, snd then determine, sub-
ject to the approval of the Administrator, whether the catch shoutd be
limited, Ihis might be done either by allocating trip poijndage auotas
to the mackerel vessels, or be requiring portions of the fleet to stay
in port at given timeso
These provisions applied only to the catch of the purse' seine ves-
sels, which account for about four-fifths of the units of vessel size,
THE COIJTROL AUD THE Q1J0TA.S. IN 1934
The Executive Committee, about June 1, 1934, submitted for approval
reguJ-ations applying these production control provisions. These measures,
which were approved on June 9, restricted the catch to 700,000 pounds a
week. Dujring the two weeks , ending on June 23 the actual landings averaged
only 512,000 pounds; but this shortage is believed to have been an axciden-
tal result of biological and weather conditions.
From the vreek ending June 30 the quota was raised to 1,100,000
pounds a week - though, owing to a misunderstanding with respect to pro-'
cedure, the revision T;as not approved b3' the Administration thtil Jioly"
14. On AT3g:ust 6 the quota was doubled to 2,200,000 pounds (*) .
There would in any case have had to be a substa.ntial increase at this
time, as a result of the seasonal movement. Apart from that,, however,
information had been, received that the ustial supply of salt mackerel for
importation from Europe during the winter of 1934-1935 was not likely
to be available. The very sharp jump in the quota on August 6, therefore,
was made to talce care of the estimated additional needs of the domestic
salting trade.
THE APPLICATIOlNf EOR AM EIJBaGEI-JCY PRICE MD THE COKTaOL
The Atlantic Mackerel Code contained, in addition to the provisions,
for the regulation of the catch, a clause (Article VIII, Title C, Section
1, paragraph (h) ), which permitte(^- the setting, subject to the a.pproval
(*) The original control W3.s covered by Regulations 1 and '2 of the Execxi-
tive Committee, under date of Hay 25, 1934, and was approved by the Admin-
istrator in Administrative Order 308-IS-4 on June 9. The revision of the
quota to 1,100,000 pounds per week was ai^proved in Administrative Order
308-L-5 on July 14. The revision to 2,200,000 pounds per week wa.s approved
in A?jiiinistrative Order 303-I>-7 on August 6, The control \7as finally re-
scinded bj- Administrative Order 308-I!-9 on October 22. Regulations 6, 7
and 8 of the Executive Committee proposed alterations in the machinery of
the control. These Regulations are in the files of the De-outy Adminis-
trator: Atlantic Mackerel Fishing Code, Trade Practices Folder.
95R1
-114-
of the Administrator, of a lowest reasona"ble cost as a "basis of sales in
an einergencj'-. The E3;ecu.tive Comraittee, interpreting the term emergency
as apioljring to the conditions Y/hich had existed in the fishery continuous-
ly since the season of 1932, submitted for approval, on August 2, 1934,
a regulation setting a lowest reasonahle cost of three cents per pound on
mackerel for the fresh market, with tolerances for sales to the freezing
and salting trades. Tliis scale would have resulted in an average price
of about 1.75 cents per pound. Ihe average actually realized hy the
fishermen during the seven weeks ending Septemher 29, 1934, was 1.31 cents.
If the proposed minimum price had been approved and enforced, consequent-
ly, the producers would have realized a more than negligible advantage,
though not an enornous one.
The Industry's interpretation of the term "emergency" in making this
aDplication for the setting of a minimum price, was of, course entirely
different from that which had for some time been adopted by the Research
and Planning Division, and which, in August, 1934, was on the point of
acceptance as the official policy of the Administration. As a result
the application was disapproved on September 6,
The Committee, including the Administration Member, has steadily
contended that the disappointment and resentment^ of the fishermen which
resulted from the denial of this application, affected compliance with
the production quotas so adversely that the control practically broke
down. The real probability is that all the controversies on this subject
after the early part of August were a waste of, breath. After the quota
had been raised, to 2,200,000 pounds per week it was not more than 10 or
12 per cent, at most, below the current supply. There was one week, short-
ly after the .denial of the supplication for the setting of a lowest rea-
sonable cost, when the landings greatly exceeded the quota. It appears
to be true, moreover, that from that time the Executive Committee made
little effort to obtain compliance with the control. But after the first
of September actual landings exceeded the q^uota only slightly if at all;
and it probatily made little or no difference whether the control contin-
ued nominalljr in effect or not,
THE BESULTS Pg THB CONTHOL
Table XXX summarizes the quotas which were in effect during the 1934
season, the relation of the actual landings to them, and the average
prices realized.
It is apparent that from the latter part of June the landings of
ma.ckerel kept very close to the qiiotas. Some excess trips are knoiim to
have been landed at southern l^ew England ports, f/here the Executive Con>-
mittee did not have representatives to enforee the Code; but these cannot
have aiiiouated to much.
9581
-115-
TiBLE XXX
EPS^CT OF TI-EE CONTROL OP THE CATCH OE THE
ATIAKTIC PUUSE SEIKE MAGKEZEL ELEET, 1934
2 weeks 7 weeks 7 weeks
ending ending ending
Jtuie 23, Aug, 11 Sep, 29,
1934 1934 1934
Total Quantity landed (pounds) 1,023,600 7,876,400 15,140,900
Total value lajided . ' $40,206 ^ $179,493 $197,982
Average price per per pound
to fishermen (cents) 3^93 2»28 .- 1..31
Average quantity landed per wk. 511,800 1,125,200 2,162,900
/
/
'pounds)
Weekly production quota (pounds) 700,000 1,100,000 2,200,000
Source: Data supplied Tdv 0. E. Bette, Bureau of Fisheries, CaLatridge,
.Massachusetts.
It may Tse concluded that for ahout two months the regulation of the
mackerel catch under the Code wa,s approximately effective. It had no
effect during the latter part of the season? hut this was due to circum~
stances heyond anyone's control. The question therefore remains whether,
during the two months of the existence of a real limitation on the catch,
the effect was such as to Justify the expectations of the Industry in
asking for the approval of the control provision,
THE COIITROL MD OTEIER PHICE-GOVESHIMG FACTOES
It has already "been pointed out that the price paid for a given q^^an-
tity of mackerel appears to he governed- rather rigidly hy the price of
meat ^long ¥ath some other factors of secondary importance. If this is
the case, the expectation would "be that at a- given low price of meat a
restriction of the catch could not hy itself raise the price of mackerel
to the level where it had heen at a high meat price.
The impracticahility of so doing, moreover, is enhanced "by two other
considerations. In the first place a detailed sjialysis of the price of
mackerel over a period of more than 20 years has sho\ifn that while sma„ll
scale lajidings hring higher imit prices than landings on a large scale,
the price does not increase in proportion to the cut in production. That
is, if the q-uantity of mackerel marketed in a given month is cut in half
the price is not thereby dou"bled, while an increase of 50 per cent in
tfi§ landings is accompanied "by a decrease in the price of less thsji one-
third,
9581
-116-
¥ith this relationsliip is a,ssocia,tecl a second, fact - that when
mackerel landings are large the ratio of tiie nrnn'oer of vessels fishing
to the quojitity landed, and also the intensity of the competition to
dispose of the catch, tend to be low; while with relatively small land-
ings this ratio is norraaJ.ly high and the competition is more intense.
Unless, therefore, a restriction of the catch vrere associated with a lim-
itation on the mimljer of vessels engaging in the fishery, it could ;oro"b-
ably not he ex;oected to raise the price proportionately to the reduction
in the quantity.
STATISTICAL EVIKEWCE OF PBICE BELATIOKSHIPS
Complete sta,tistical proof of these statements would take too much
'space ajid v/ould he too technical for inclusion in this report. Table
XXXI, however, shows what has happened during the past 22 years to the
gross va.lue ,of mackerel landings at Boston and Gloucester, at descending
levels of the price of meat.
In this table the value of the catch does not fall with perfect
regularitj" as the index of meat prices goes down; but reasons are laiown
for 8.11 the important exceptions. The value of the cs,tch for 1921 ajid.
1922, and in a less degree for 1919, 1920 and 1923, vras pulled down by
the abnormally small landings in all but a few months. The dispropor-
tionately high value of the 1931 catch was associated with a sharp de-
cline in the landings of other species of fish at Boston and Gloucester.
The high value for 1916, and in a less degree for 1915 and 1917, was
associated v/ith the heavy reduction in imports of salt -mackerel during
the War,
Tllien allowance has been' made for these secondary factors, Table
XXXI makes it fairly clear that a cut in the quantity of mackerel land-
ed, though normally acompanied by an increase in the unit price, has
never raised the gross value of the calch, at a given level of the price
of meat, to a figure comparable with the values realized at much higher
levels,
COIICLUSIOIm UITH ISGARD to the PRODUCTION COirTROL
In the light of these considerations it is hard to avoid the con-
clusion that the attempt of the mackerel fishery to solve its problems
of unremuner active prices and subnormal earnings by limiting its produc-
tion was an impracticable one. The attem.pt however, was made in good
faith, under strong provocation, and it did not, in practice, cause ser-
ious injury to consumers. The whole matter was less important than it
was held to be in some quarters, and hardly justified the publicity it
received or the controversies that centered about it.
9531
-117-
TABLS XXXI
Q,UAi:TITY, VALUE MD AVEa^i&E PRICE OP IvACKEHEL LAl'IDEB
AT BOSTON AMD GLOUCESTER, 1913-1934, IN RELATION TO
WHOLESALE ivIEAT PRICES
B. L. S,
»
Index Ninnbers
Year a/
of Wholesale
Heat Prices
■Qj^antity
Value
Ave
;rage Price
(1926=100)
(Poimds)
(Dollars)
(Ceni
;s per Pound)
1919
117.6
5,501,393
$ 514,516
9.35
1918
115.2
9,435,139
l.:108,922
11.75
1929
109.1
35s 744. 004
1 5,329, 491
3.72
1920
108.0
7,166,397
748,682
10.45
1928
107,0
23,517,261
1,321,005
5.62
1926
100,0
34,279,563
1,347,373
3.93
1930
98.4
32,784,777
1,129,564
3.45
1925
93.3
25,413,103
1,164,167
4.53
1917
92.9
16,334,633
1,410,546
8.38
1927
92.7
30,898,475
1,280,155
4.13
1921
77.4
2,884,780
283,489
9.83
1922
76.6
3,681,500
245,266
6.66
1925
76o2
10,576,729
453,466
4.29
1924
75.7
9,259,494
519,403
5.61
1931
75.4
27,208,754
1,165,440
4.28
1916
66e4
15,144,347
1,010,410
6,67
1934
62.9
29,301,196
539,241
lo84
1914
62.3
6,688„850
354,725
5.30
1913
59.8
5, 575^922
347,068
6.11
1932
58.2
36,328,707
599,253
1,65
1915
57.6
10j918.402
614,079
5,62
1933
50.0
21,394,461
485,216
2.27
Soiorce:
Biireau of
Lator
Statistics, vlholesa
,le Prices, ann-ual
reports.
Biu-eau of
Fisheries, Annaa.l reoort
of the Coram:
ssioner of Pish-
eries and
Pishery Industries of tlie
United Stat
es.
a/ Hie years are arranged in the descending order of the price
index num'bers.
9581#
OFFICE OF THE MA.TIOML HECOVERY ADMIHISTRATION
THE DIVISION OP REVIEW
THE vfORK OF THE- DIVISIOH OP REVIEW
Executive Order No, 7075, dated Jirne 15, 1935, rstatlished the ^Division
of RevietT of the National Recovery Administration, The pertinent part of the
Executive Order reads thusi
The Division of Review shall assemble, analj'-ze, and report upon
the sta,tistical information and records of experience of the
operations of the various trades and industries heretofore suTd-
ject to codes of fair competition, shall study the effacts of
such codes upon trade, industrial and la^hor conditions in gener-
al, and other related matters, shall make availahle 'for the prt>-
tection and promotion of the puhlic interest an adequate review
of the effects of the administration of Title I of the National
Industrial Recovery Act, and the principles and. policies put in-
to effect thereunder, and shall otherwise aid the President in
carrying out his functions under the said Title,
The study sections set up in the Division of Review covered these areasl
industry stiidies, foreign trade studies, lahor studies, trade practice studles»-
statistical studies, legal studies, administration studies, miscellaneous
studies, and the irriting of code histories. The materials which were produced
hy these sections are indicated "below.
Except for the Code Histories, all items mentioned helow arc schicojJ.cL to te i
ninoosra.phed form "by April 1, 1936.
THE CODE HISTORIES
The Code Histories are documented accounts of the formation and adminis-
tration of the codes. They ccntain the definition of the industry and the
principal products thereof; the classes of memhers in the industry; the history
of code formation including an account of the sponsoring organizations, the
conferences, negotiations and hea.rings which were held, and the activities in ^ •
connection with obtaining approval of the code; the history of the administra^ ' _
tion of the code, covering the organization and operation of the code authority,
the difficulties encountered in administration, the extent of conrpliance or
non-compliance, and the general success or lack of success of the code; and an
analysis of the operation of code provisions dealing with wages, hours, trade
practices, and. other provisions. These and other matters are canvassed not
only in terms of the materials to he found in the files, hut also in terms of
the experiences of the deputies and others concerned with code formation and
administration.
The Code Histories, (including histories of certain NRA units or agencies)
are not mimeographed. They are to he turned over to the Department of Commeroe —
in type\'iTitten form. All told, approximately eight hundred and fifty (850)
histories will he completed. This mzmher includes all of the approved codes
and some pf the unapproved codes, (in Work Materials No. 18. Contents of Cods
Histories, will he fo-und the outline which governed the preparation of Code
Histories.)
9631
- 11 -
(In the case of all approved codes and also in the case of some codes not
cart-ied to final ap^^i-oValj there are in MA files further materials on indus-
tries. Particularly worthy of mention are the Volumes I, II and III which
constitute the material officially submitted to the President in support of *the
recommendation for approval of each code. These volinnes set forth the origina-
tion of the code, the sponsoring group, the evidence advanced to support the
proposal, the report of the Division of Research and Planning on the industry,
the recommendations of the various Advisory Boards, certain types of official
correspondence, the transcript of the formal hearing, and other pertinent
matter. There is also much official information relating to amendments, in-
terpretations, exemptions, and other rulings. The materials mentioned in this
paragraph were of course not a part of the work of the Division of Review.)
TBE wore: MATERIALS SERIES
In the work of the Division of Review a considerable number of studies
and compilations of data (other than those noted below in the Evidence Studies
Series and the Statistical Materials Series) have been made. These ai'e listed
below, grouped according to the character of the material, (in Work Materials
No. 17, Tentative Outlines and Summaries of Studies in Process, these materials
are fully described).
Industry' Studies
Automobile Industry, An Economic Survey of
Bituminous Coal Industry under Free Competition and Code Regulation, Economic
Survey of
Construction Industry and KRA Construction Codes, the
Electrical Manufacturing Industry, The
Fertilizer Industry, The
Fishery Industry and the Fishery Codes
Fishervien and Pishing Craft, Earnings of
Foreign Trade under the National Industrial Recovery Act
Part A - Competitive Position of the United States in International Trade
1927-29 through 1934.
Part B - Section 3 (e) of IIIRA and its administration.
Part C - Imports and Importing under NRA Codes,
Part D - £>:ports and Exporting under MA Codes.
Forest Products Industries, Foreign Trade Study of the
Iron and Steel Industry, The
Knitting Industries, The
Leather and Shoe Industries, The
Lumber and Timber Products Industry, Economic Problems of the
Men's Clothing Industry, The
Millinery Industry, The
Motion Picture Industry, The
Migration of Industry, The! The Shift of T\7enty-Five Needle Trades From New
York State, 1926 to 1934
National Income, A study of,
Paper Industry, The
Production, Prices, Employment and Payrolls in Industry, Agriculture and Rail-
way Transportation, January 1923, to date
Retail Trades Study, The
Rubber Industry Study, The
Statistical Baclfground of NRA
Textile Industry in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan
Textile Yarns and Fabrics
Tobacco Industrj'-, The
Wholesale Trades Study, The
Women's Apparel Industry, Some Aspects of the
- Ill -
Trade Practice Studies
Coraraodities, Information Concerning: A Study of HEA and Related Experiences
in Control
Distriliution, Manufacturers' Control of: A Study of Trade Pra,ctice Provisions
in Selected KRA Codes .•
Design Piracy: The Protlem and Its Treatment Under MA Codes
Electrical Mfg. Industry: Price Filing Study
Fertilizer Industry: Price Filing Study
Geographical Price Relations Under Codes of Fair Competition^ Control of
Minimum Price Regulation Under Codes of Fair Competition
Multiple Ba,sing Point System in the Lime Industry: Operation of the
Price Control in the Coffee Industry
Price Filing Under IIRA Codes
Production Control Under iffA Codes, Sone Aspects of,
Resale Price Maintenance Legislation in the United Stc?.tes
Retail Price Cutting, Restriction of, v.dth special Emphasis on The Drug Industry,
Trade Practice Rules of The Federal Trade Commission (1914-1936): A classificatioj
for comparison with Trade Practice Provisions of HRA Codes.
Lahor Studies
Employment, Payrolls, Hours, and Wages in 115 Selected Code Industries
193S-1935
Hours and Wages in Americaja Industry
Lahor Program Under the National Industrial Recovery Act, The
Part A. Introduction
Part B. Control of Hours and Reemployment
Part C, Control of Wages
Part D, Control of Other Conditions of Employment
Part E, Section 7(a) of the Recovery Act
PRA Census of Employment, June, October, 1933
Puerto Rico Needlework, Horaeworkers Survey
Administrative Studies
Administrative and Legal Aspects of Stays, Exemptions and Exceptions, Code
Amendments, Conditions! Orders of Approval
Administrative Interpretations of W.A Codes
Administrative La,w and Procedure under the UIRA
Agreements Under Sections 4(a) and 7(1)) of the ITIRA
Approved Codes in Industr;;/ Groups, Classification of
Basic Code, the — (Administrative Order X-6l)
Code Authorities and Their Part in the Administration of the NIRA
Part A. Introduction
Part Bb Nature, Composition and Organization of Code Authorities
Part C. Activities of the Code Authorities
Part D, Code Axithority Finances
Part C, Summary and Evaluation
Code Compliance Activities of the NRA
Code Making Program of the l^IRA in the Territories, The
Code Provisions and Related Subjects, Policy Statements Concerning
Content of NIRA Administrative Legislation
Part A» Executive and Administrative Orders
Part B, Labor Provisions in the Codes
Part C, Trade Practice Provisions in the Codes
Part D, Adminis tractive Provisions in the Codes
Part E, Agreements under Sections 4(a) and 7(b)
Part F, A Type Case: The Cottom Textile Code
Labels Under NRA, A Study of
9631 - -. -•
4
- IV -
Model Code and Model Provisions for Codes, Development of
National Recovery Administration, The: A Review and Evaluation of its
Orcanii^ation and Activities ,»
NRA Insignia
President's Reemplojonent .Agreement, The
President's Reemployment Agreement, Substitutions in Connection with the
Prison Lahor Prohlera under KRA and the Prison Compact, The
Prohlems of Administration in the Overlap"oing of Code Definitions of Industries
and Trades, Multiple Code Coverage, Classifying Individual Merahers of Inr-
dustries and Trades
Relationship of MA to Government Contracts and Contracts Involving the Use of
Gbvernment Funds
Relationship of IIRA with other Federal Agencies
Relationship of IIEIA with States and Municipalities
Sheltered Workshops Under KH.A
Uncodified Industries: A Study of Factors Limiting the Code Making Program
Legal Studies
Anti-Trust Laws and Unfair Competition
Collective Bargaining Agreements, the Right of Individual Employees to Enforce
Provisions of
Commerce Clause, Possiole Federal Regulation of the Employer-Employee Relation-
ship Under the
Delegation of Power, Certain Phases of the Principle of, v/ith Reference to
Federal Industrial Regulatory Legislation
Enforcement, Extra-Judicial Methods of
Federal Regulation through the Joint Employment of the Power of TaJKation and
the Spending Power
Government Contract Provisions as a Means of Estahlishing Proper Economic
Standards, Legal Memorandum on Possioility of
Intrastate Activities Wliich so Affect Interstate Commerce as to Bring them
Under the Commerce Clause, Cases on
Legislative Possibilities of the State Constitutions
Post Office and Post Roa.d Power — Can it he Used as a Means of Federal Indus-
trial Regulation?
State Recovery Legislation in Aid of Federal Recovery Legislation .j-'
History and Analysis
Tariff Rates to Secure Proper Standards of Wages and Hours, the Possibility of
Variation in
Trade Practices and the Anti-Trust Laws
Tready Making Power of the United States
War Power, Can it "be Used as a Means of Federal Regulation of Child Labor?
THE EVIDEEGE STUDIES SERIES
The Evidence Studies were originally undertaken to gather material for
pending court cases. After the Schechter decision the project was continued in
order to assemble data for use in connection ?7ith the studies of the Division
of Review, The data are particularly concerned with the nature, size and
operations of the industry; and with the relation of the industry to interstate
commerce. The industries covered by the Evidence Studies account for more than
one-half of the total number of workers under codes. The list of these studies
follows:
9631
-V-
Automotile Mantifacturing Industry
Axitomotive Parts & Equipment Ind,
Baking Industrjr
Boot and Shoe Manufacturing Ind»
Bottled Soft Drink Industry
Builders' Snjpplies Industry
Canning Industry
Chemical Ifenufacturing Industry
Cigar Ifentifacturing Industry
Coat and Suit Industry
Construction Industry
Cotton Garment Industry
Dress Manufacturing Industrj''
Electrical Contracting Indxistry
Electrica-1 Manufacturing Industry
Eahricated Metel Products Mfg. Ind,
and Metal Einishing and Metal
Coating Industry
Fishery Industry
Furniture I<ianufacturing Ind.
General Contractors Industry
Graphic Arts Industry
Gray Iron Foundry Industry
Hosiery Industry
Infant's and Children's Wear Ind^
Iron and Steel Industry
Leather Industry
Lumber and Timher Products Ind.
Mason Contractors Industry
Men's Clothing Industry
Motion Picture Industry
Motor Vehicle Retailing Trade
Needlework Industry of Puerto Rico
Painting and Paperhanging Ind,
Photo Engraving Industry
Pl-iorahing Contracting Industry
Retail Lumher Industry
Retail Trade Industry
Retail Tire and Battery Trade. Ind.
Ha"bT3f?r Manufacturing Industry
Ruhher Tire Manufacturing Ind»
Shipbuilding Industry
Silk Textilo Industry
Structural Clay Products Ind,
Throwing Industry
Trucking Industry
Waste Materials Industry
Wholesale and Retail Food Ind.
Wholesale Fresh -Fruit and Vegetahle
Ind,
Wool Textile Industry
THE STATISTICAL MJLTERIALS SERIES
This series is supplementary to the Evidence Studies Series. The reports
include data on estaldishments, firms, employment, payrolls, wages, hours,
production, capacities, shipments, sales, consumption, stocks, prices, material
costs, failures, exports and imports. They also include notes on the prin-
cipal qualifications that should he ohservcd in using the data, the technical
methods employed, and the app] icahility of the material to the study of the in-
dustries concerned. The follo\7ing numhers appear in the series! ;
Asphalt Shingle and Roofing Industry
Business Furniture
Candy Manufacturing Industry
Carpet and Rug Industry
Cement Industry
Gleaning and Dyeing Trade
Coffee Industry
Copper and Brass Mill Prod, Ind,
Cotton Textile Industry
Electrical Manufacturing Ind,
Fertilizer Industry
Funeral Supply Industry
Glass Containor Industry
Ice Manufacturing Industry
Knitted Outerwear Industry
Paint, Varnish, and Lacquor Mfg, Ind, .
Plurahing Fixtures Industry
Rayon and Synthetic Yarn Producing Ind,
Salt Producing Industry
9631#
I
•«
r'
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11