Since that letter was filed, however, we have received a number of supporting communications from our members. I would like to submit those for the record, reading perhaps two of them and leaving the rest of them for your consideration.

The first one is from the Coca-Cola Co., of Wilmington, Del., over the signature of H. B. Oehlert, Jr., vice president, addressed to Mr. John J. Riley, secretary of the American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages, 1128 Sixth Street, Washington, D. C.

We understand that you have recently addressed a letter to the Honorable Charles W. Tobey, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, urging favorable consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 58, and setting forth the text of a resolution of the executive board of your association objecting to the premature decontrol of sugar.

The rationing of sugar has placed a crushing burden on all users of sugar, but especially upon the soft-drink industry, which has not generally felt free even in the face of steadily mounting costs to augment vitally needed and publicly demanded production by the use of substitute sweeteners.

The removal of all controls at this time would unquestionably result in immediate short-term benefits for the industry, and would probably be popular with at least a segment of the population.

It is indeed a mark of true American statesmanship to speak and act against one's own immediate interests on behalf of the public good, especially when a sizable portion of the public has been misled into thinking that its good lies in another direction.

Senator MCCARTHY. Who is the letter from?

Mr. OVERMAN. Coca-Cola Co., H. B. Oehlert, Jr., vice president. [Continuing :]

We, therefore, take the liberty, not only of expressing our concurrence in your position, but also in commending the integrity which you have manifest. In the long run, nothing can permanently benefit any industry or any company if it is inimicable to the real interests of the American people as a whole. No matter how much sugar controls have retarded and damaged your industry and my company, their removal now would unquestionably harm the country

more.

Signed by H. B. Oehlert, Jr.

One more from another of the parent companies.

Senator McCARTHY. May I see that letter?

Mr. OVERMAN. Yes, sir [handing to Senator McCarthy]. A telegram from the Dr. Pepper Co., Texas:

Dr. Pepper Co., speaking for itself and as it sees the position of the great majority of its more than 400 licensed bottlers spread over 40 States, is opposed to release of controls on price and use of sugar at this time. Decontrol now would almost certainly bring about very substantial rise in price of sugar and also wild scramble for purchase of available supplies. Many small bottling concerns of long years standing, which have barely been able to keep going during war period, could not survive in a race for available supplies nor could they survive a large price increase in sugar now. Particularly would this be so if, as is oft reported, some of the large competitive beverage concerns own or control domestic or foreign sugar plantations or refineries or the output thereof, thereby giving them a positive source of supply and the opportunity to offset losses in one industry by their profit in another industry. We urge retention of controls on sugar until supply more nearly equals demand. We feel that proposal to extend allotments of available sugar to new user concerns should not be adopted at this time. Such extension would necessarily greatly reduce allotments to old established users and deprive them of opportunity to get back on sound prewar financial basis. We request that you please read this telegram in person at next hearing of subcommittee.

Signed by Dr. Pepper Co., Dallas, Tex., S. M. Leftwich, vice president.

98445-47-15

There are others by the Canada Dry Ginger Ale Co., Nehi Corp., W. D. Bost, Orange Crush Co., from the National Nugrape Co., from the Seven-Up Co., of St. Louis, Mo. There are several also from bottlers

Senator SPARKMAN. That is not the same as the Joyce Seven-Up? Mr. OVERMAN. This is the parent Seven-Up Co.

I would like to explain the set-up of what the parent company is in its relationship to the bottler at this time perhaps. I think there is a popular misconception that big names in the soft-drink industry mean big chains of bottling plants. The soft-drink industry consists of a group of franchise houses who license to small bottling plants the right to make their product under certain conditions.

Senator MCCARTHY. Will you give me the name of the company opposing allowing sugar to new users?

Mr. OVERMAN. Yes, sir. That is the Dr. Pepper Co., of Dallas, Tex. Senator MCCARTHY. I wonder if I could see that wire.

Mr. OVERMAN. Yes, sir [handing to Senator McCarthy].

Senator McCarthy. I will return that to you.

(The communications presented for incorporation in the record are as follows:)

JOHN J. RILEY,

(Telephoned from New York by Wm. J. Williams)

American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages, 1128 Sixteenth Street:

This company is opposed to discontinuation of rationing and price control of sugar. It favors suitable legislation to continue rationing and price control of sugar for a period of 1 year from expiration of the Second War Powers Act of 1942. You are authorized to put this in your presentation before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee.

CANADA DRY GINGER ALE, INC.

COLUMBUS, GA., March 1, 1947.

JOHN J. RILEY,

Secretary, American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages:

It is our opinion and that of our several hundred bottlers throughout the United States that rationing of sugar and its price control should continue. We think decontrol at this time would seriously and injuriously affect our organization and other members of the industry.

JOHN J. RILEY,

WILLIS BATTLE,
Vice President, Nehi Corp.

CHICAGO, ILL., February 28, 1947.

Secretary, American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages:

We understand Senate Joint Resolution 58 coming up for conisderation immediately. We wish to go on record as being decidedly opposed to decontrol of sugar during 1947. We feel certain premature decontrol of sugar will result in unreasonable increase in price, and wildly fluctuating market, and producing extreme shortage of supply to many users.

ORANGE CRUSH Co.

W. D. BOST, Chairman of the Board.

JOHN J. RILEY,

American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages:

ATLANTA, GA., March 1, 1947.

We are definitely opposed to premature ending of sugar rationing and decontrol. Urge you do all in your power to have controls and rationings continued until at least end of the year. We are further opposed to having sugar containing products now classified as sugar when all through the wars they were not so classified.

DEAR MR. RILEY: I have a copy of your letter of February 24, 1947, addressed to the Honorable Charles W. Tobey, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, with regard to the extension of sugar rationing and price controls. It is indeed heartening to us to know that for all practical purposes, the entire soft drink industry, including the franchise houses, are in agreement on the proposition of extending sugar rationing and price controls until there is enough sugar for everyone at reasonable prices.

We do not wish for controls to continue forever, but we do think that under the present situation there is no other alternative for obtaining equitable distribution of sugar at reasonable prices to the household consumers, industrial users and other sugar users.

For your information, we believe that some 440 bottlers of 7-Up located throughout the United States are in agreement. We know of only about 10 bottlers of 7-Up who are in favor of decontrol.

Yours very truly,

THE SEVEN-UP Co. (s) JOHN T. TABOR.

Mr. OVERMAN. There are several here from bottling companies as such and I am informed by your clerk that there is quite a file of individual bottling companies who have wired to you direct. It is rather pertinent, however.

From the Seven-Up Bottling Co., of Winston-Salem, N. C.:

For the past 5 years we have been struggling to exist. We are now swinging back to normal in an orderly fashion under sugar control.

Decontrol now would cause a scramble and send sugar prices skyrocketing which would spell doom to us small bottlers.

We urge that you protect us by keeping controls until available sugar catches up with the demand.

We hope that you will please present our case personally before the committee. There are others along the same vein to add to those which I am sure are in your files.

May I present these please for the record?
Senator FLANDERS. You may.

(The communications presented for incorporation in the record are as follows:)

JOHN J. RILEY,

CHATTANOOGA, TENN., February 28, 1947.

Secretary, American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages:

We definitely feel it would be disastrous to all industrial users of sugar if either rationing or price control were terminated at present when the supply is not sufficient to meet the demand. Rrationing and price control must be continued until more sugar is available.

DOUBLE COLA BOTTLING CO
C. D. LITTLE, President..

JOHN J. RILEY,

Washington, D. C.:

MONTGOMERY, ALA.

The following telegram has been sent to Senator John J. Sparkman and the subcommittee on sugar. Please present this personally before the committee. We urge continuance at this time of all controls on sugar and until supply available in the United States more nearly equals demand. Big soft-drink concerns might absorb further increases in operation expense which would surely result from increased sugar prices if decontrol is allowed but small businesses such as ours cannot. It is also highly important that no provisions be made for new sugar users until adequate supplies are available to sustain old established firms.

JOHN J. RILEY,

DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO.

GREENSBORO, N. C., February 28, 1947.

American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages:

The following telegram has been sent to subcommittee on sugar. Please present this personally before the committee. For the protection of our very small business and the many like us we urge that you continue the controls of sugar until available sugar catches up with demands. It has been a real struggle for us to exist for 5 years and decontrol at this time would be the death knell for many of us. It is possible some large operators may have protective interest whereby decontrols would give them a terrific advantage over the small independent bottler and advantage to all we urgently request continuance of present control.

DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO. OF NORTH CAROLINA,
C. E. KEMPTON.

JOHN J. RILEY,

WINSTON-SALEM, N. C., February 28, 1947.

American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages:

The following telegram has been sent to Subcommittee on Sugar. Please present this personally before the committee. For the protection of our small business and the many like us we urge that you continue controls on sugar until available sugar catches up with demand. It has been a real struggle with us to exist for 5 years and decontrol at this time would be the death knell to many of us. It is possible some large operators may have protective interests whereby decontrol would give them a terrific advantage over the small independent bottlers and in fairness to all we urgently request continuance of present control. DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO.

JOHN J. RILEY,

MACON, GA., February 28, 1947.

American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages: The following telegram has been sent to the Subcommittee on the Extension of Sugar Control. Please present this personally before the committee. We urge continuance of all controls on sugar until supply available in United States more nearly equals demand. We cannot absorb further increases in operating expense which would surely result from increased sugar price if decontrol is allowed. Also until adequate supplies are available to sustain the operation of old-established concerns no provisions should be made for new sugar

users.

Dr. PEPPER BOTTLING CO. OF MACON.

JOHN J. RILEY,

DALLAS, TEX., February 28, 1947.

American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages:

The following wire has been sent to the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, Subcommittee on Extension of Sugar Controls. We are a small concern and wish to let the committee know that we feel an extension of controls at this time extremely important and necessary for small beverage businesses in order for them to continue to exist. We have barely been able to do during the war period. Release of control now would invite price fluctuations and tend to make possible the concentration of available supplies in the hands of a few. Will appreciate your personally reading this before the committee at their next hearing. COAST COUNTIES DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO.,

Senator FLANDERS. Any questions?

Senator MCCARTHY. Yes; I have several.

Long Beach, Calif.

I note in this wire from the Dr. Pepper Co., what seems to be the perhaps all-controlling reason why all of the bottlers are in here opposing decontrol [reading]:

We feel that the proposal to extend allotments of available sugar to new user concerns should not be adopted.

Is that not essentially the real reason why we have had this great array of bottling concerns in here, all urging that we continue controls? They do not want new competition; is that not the answer?

Mr. OVERMAN. They want new competition when there is a supply; yes, sir. I think it is a disservice to the newcomer to let him try to do business successfully under a condition of scarcity.

Senator MCCARTHY. Now, sir, you do not believe the American Government should protect the men who want to go into business? Do you not feel that our system of Government requires that every man decide for himself and that they cannot be spoon fed?

Mr. OVERMAN. Perhaps so.

Senator BRICKER. You are not representing the fellow that wants to go in, though?

Mr. OVERMAN. On the other hand, we rather are, and this whole group that I have read telegrams from to you wish as rapidly as possible to expand their outlets-this whole group of parent companies, and as rapidly as they can see a man go into business successfully with enough material to make his operation a success, they certainly

want to.

Senator MCCARTHY. In other words, the men whom you represent would like more sugar so they can expand their operations, but they do not want new users in taking some of the sugar which they themselves would like to have.

Is that not the situation?

Mr. OVERMAN. I think the best answer to that is that in 1941 there were 6,848 bottlers, at the end of 1946 there were 5,834 bottlers, 575 of them having failed under the sugar rationing.

Senator BRICKER. Had it not been for this historic basis of allocation those that failed would have been replaced by others coming in. That is no more than the normal failure in business in this country. Senator MCCARTHY. That seems to be a rather low percentage. Senator BRICKER. Is that not the situation?