Mr. BROSSARD. I do not know what the result would have been if they had taken what I wanted. It was not a question of where the result would lead to. That has never been my point of view of the Tariff Commission. But I did think the members of the commission ought to have the report on sound, technical, scientific grounds, and it was for that reason that I gave these men the benefit of my opinion and of my judgment on that subject. Senator HARRISON. If they had followed your suggestion in arriving at the rate, it would have been much higher than $1.89? Mr. BROSSARD. Í do not know. It has never been worked out. Senator HARRISON. As an economist, do you not believe that would be true? Mr. BROSSARD. No; I do not know. Senator HARRISON. Is it your opinion that the sugar tariff should be raised from that which was carried in the act of 1922? Mr. BROSSARD. That is a question of policy that I have never entered into. Senator HARRISON. You have not any conviction about the subject? Mr. BROSSARD. I think, if you are going to protect the sugar industry, so that it can survive in this country and prosper, it would have to be higher. Senator HARRISON. It would have to be higher? Mr. BROSSARD. Yes. Senator SIMMONS. What happened when you gentlemen were all there around the table, when there was a disagreement? Did you discuss it, and after you discussed it, did you take the majority opinion, or did you just leave that untouched? Mr. BROSSARD. As a matter of fact, they took my cost data and my recommendations, as a rule, with respect to agricultural costs; that is, farm costs, in the production of sugar beets, and when it came to the other questions, Mr. Fox had worked up nearly all the technical data on the other questions, and whatever he said they accepted. Senator SIMMONS. From the work that was assigned to each man, you put it all together and made the report? Mr. BROSSARD. Yes, sir; and the work they had assigned to me was largely and principally these agricultural cost data. When it came to a question on my part of that material, naturally they would ask me about it, and I gave the information I had. Of course, that forms only a small fraction of the report. Senator HARRISON. Have you any opinion now that the tariff rate on sugar, as put in this recent bill, is not high enough? Mr. BROSSARD. For what purpose? Senator HARRISON. For any purpose. Suppose the matter were to come before you. Have you now formed an opinion as to what you would do about it, in the way of an increased tariff rate? Mr. BROSSARD. On the question of the cost of production, or equalization under the act, I would try to find the facts. Senator HARRISON. Have you already formed an opinion as to what the facts would justify, whether they would justify an increase? Mr. BROSSARD. No. I think, if you took the straight cost of production, as it was calculated in the Culbertson-Lewis-Costigan report, and made a new calculation on that same basis, using the price paid for sugarcane in Cuba as the cost of production of the sugarcane in Cuba, there would be a wider spread than the present duty. Senator HARRISON. It would be increased? Mr. BROSSARD. Yes; I don't think there is any doubt about that. I think anybody would concede that. Senator HARRISON. If you were to follow the same policy pursued in writing the minority report, it would be still higher. Mr. BROSSARD. It would not be quite so high at the present time. Senator HARRISON. In other words Mr. BROSSARD. I mean, it would not be quite so high as it would be if you followed the report of Commissioners Culbertson, Lewis, and Costigan. Senator HARRISON. If you take the Culbertson-Costigan formula, and apply it to present conditions, in your opinion you think it would be much higher than it would be if you applied the same formula that was worked out through the adoption of the minority members' report? Mr. BROSSARD. That is true. Take the cost of production of beets Senator HARRISON. Which one do you think is the wiser formula? Mr. BROSSARD. I think the sounder formula is to take the cost of production of the raw material, because if you include the price paid for the sugar cane in Cuba, when sugar was very high in 1920, naturally the cost of the cane alone was up sky high, and when it was high in 1923, the cost of the cane was very high, showing a very high cost of production of sugar cane in Cuba when, as a matter of fact, it may not have been that at all. My notion was that if we took the fundamental farm costs of production of the cane and beets in both countries, then we are on perfectly safe ground, because you have the agricultural costs there, and it is a thing which does not vary with the price. It does not run up and down with respect to the price of the sugar, which is the final product, and it would be much sounder. That also was the opinion expressed by the chief economist and the chief of the agricultural division before the sugar investigation ever was ordered, but the chief of the sugar division said that agricultural costs did not need to be ascertained. There was a division on the staff at the very beginning, before either of the investigations was ordered. The chief economist and the chief of the agricultural division insisted that farm costs should be ascertained. Senator SHORTRIDGE. What was the word? Mr. BROSSARD. Farm costs. Senator SHORTRIDGE. That is, the cost of beets or cane in Louisiana or in Michigan? Mr. BROSSARD. Yes; on the farm. Senator SHORTRIDGE. Precisely. Mr. BROSSARD. That was the beginning, and that is what these men recommended, but the chief of the sugar division was of a different. opinion, and the commission ordered the sugar investigation, and then subsequently, because of the opinion of these two other members, ordered the investigation of the cost of production of the sugar beets, under the general powers of the commission, expecting, I suppose, to incorporate it in the sugar report before it was finally done. But they made it as a separate investigation. Senator SIMMONS. I understand it is the purpose to finish these hearings to-night? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator SIMMONS. But that there is to be no vote? The CHAIRMAN. If the Senators do not vote, I will call a meeting for to-morrow morning. Senator HARRISON. I hope the chairman will get all the members here so that we can discuss the proposition before we vote. The CHAIRMAN. I will notify every one of them to meet at 10 o'clock. Senator SIMMONS. Let us meet at half-past 10. The CHAIRMAN. That will be all right. Senator HARRISON. You were an applicant for a commissionership, were you not? Mr. BROSSARD. I came to Senator Smoot, and laid my qualifications before him, and asked him if he would recommend me to the President. He went over my qualifications, and he said, "Yes; I will be glad to. You are qualified for the job." Senator HARRISON. So, the Senator presented your name as one of the commissioners? Mr. BROSSARD. I suppose he did. Senator HARRISON. Did anyone else indorse you? Mr. BROSSARD. I think so; yes. I think Senator Warren, of Wyoming, did. Senator HARRISON. Did Secretary of Commerce Hoover at that time indorse you? Mr. BROSSARD. I do not know about that, but Secretary Jardine, of Agriculture, did. Senator HARRISON. Did you not state before the committee that Secretary Hoover had indorsed you? Mr. BROSSARD. I do not think so. Senator HARRISON. Have you ever discussed sugar with him? Senator HARRISON. Had you discussed your views on sugar and the report on sugar with anyone up to that time? Mr. BROSSARD. No, sir; I never made any recommendation one way or the other. Senator HARRISON. Have you made any speeches as a commissioner indorsing this present bill? Mr. BROSSARD. No, sir; I do not think that would be justified at any time. Senator HARRISON. Have you made some speeches on the tariff? Mr. BROSSARD. Yes, sir. Senator HARRISON. Where? Mr. BROSSARD. I made one in Absecon, N. J., and one before the National Academy of Political and Social Sciences, in Philadelphia, and I think there was one over here before the National City Woman's Club, or something like that, in Washington. Senator HARRISON. Have you copies of those speeches? Mr. BROSSARD. I have copies of the first two, but have not copies. of the last one. It was not written out; but I have a press release summarizing it. Senator HARRISON. Would you object to giving to the committee copies of those? Mr. BROSSARD. I will be glad to furnish them. The CHAIRMAN. Do you want them incorporated in the record? Mr. BROSSARD. I would just as soon have them incorporated in the testimony. Senator HARRISON. I would like to read them. They may not be worth the paper to print them. The CHAIRMAN. I do not care what they are. truth, let us put it in the record. (The speeches referred to are as follows:) 1 THE UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION If we want the (By Dr. Edgar B. Brossard, Chairman, United States Tariff Commission) The United States Tariff Commission is under the spotlight at present. The Congress is still struggling with the tariff problem. They have recently been discussing in conference and on the floor of the Senate the make-up and powers of the commission. The conference committee proposed to extend its authority. Changes that have been suggested in the new tariff bill show the necessity for such a scientific fact-finding body to supply accurate information with respect to the many phases of the intricate tariff problems. I shall discuss briefly the history, personnel, and duties of the commission. HISTORY The necessity for a permanent Government agency, such as the Tariff Commission, to collect accurate information about the tariff and the operation of our customs laws and to recommend to Congress desirable changes in such laws, has long been recognized. One of the great classics of Amreican economics is the report on manufactures made by the first Secretary of the Treasury, the great Alexander Hamilton. That great document during the 140 years since it was written has had a tremendous influence upon the tariff policy of this country. That information has been useful to more than one Congress. From that time the desire for facts and more facts about the thousands of details involved in tariff legislation has continued to grow. Sixty-five years ago the Congress authorized a revenue commissioner to make investigations and to suggest to Congress desirable changes in the revenue laws, and he did so. During the next half century strong sentiment in favor of the creation of a permanent body for the furnishing of information about the tariff began to take definite form throughout the country. For a time a number of different Government agencies gathered tariff information for the President and the Congress. President Theodore Roosevelt was in favor of establishing a scientific body for gathering factual information about the tariff. Finally, in September, 1909, President William Howard Taft, under authorization provided in the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act, appointed five members to the Tariff Board, often referred to as the "Taft Tariff Board." This board functioned until 1912, when Congress failed to make further appropriations for it and it was dissolved. By 1916 public sentiment had crystallized in favor of a permanent scientific fact-finding body and the creation of the United States Tariff Commission was authorized by Title 7 of the revenue act of September 8, 1916. The commission has functioned under that law for the past 14 years. PERSONNEL The personnel of the Tariff Board, organized under the Payne-Aldrich bill and appointed by President Taft, consisted of five members, three Republicans and two Democrats-Henry C. Emery, of Connecticut, chairman; Alvin H. Sanders, of Illinois; James B. Reynolds, of Massachusetts, Republicans; and William M. Howard, of Georgia, and Dr. Thomas Walker Page, of Virginia, Democrats. 1 An address delivered at the annual union dinner of the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association of the United States and the Manufacturing Chemists Association, at the Seaview Golf Club, Absecon, N. J., June 5, 1930. President Woodrow Wilson appointed the first six members of the United States Tariff Commission-Dr. Frank W. Taussig, of Massachusetts, chairman; Daniel C. Roper, of South Carolina, vice chairman; and David J. Lewis, of Maryland, Democrats; and William Kent, of California; William S. Culbertson, of Kansas; and Edward P. Costigan, of Colorado, Republicans. The com mission was formally organized as of April 11, 1917. Congress clearly intended, in making the membership bipartisan, that the views of both major political parties should be represented on the commission. The three Republicans now on the commission are Dr. Edgar B. Brossard, of Utah, chairman; Thomas O. Marvin, of Massachusetts; and Sherman J. Lowell, of New York; and the three Democrats are Dr. Alfred P. Dennis, of Maryland, vice chairman; Lincoln Dixon, of Indiana; and Frank Clark, of Florida. Others who have served as members of the commission, together with the. period of their services, are: Dr. Thomas Walker Page, of Virginia, Democrat, from February 19, 1918, to February 28, 1923; William Burgess, of New Jersey, Republican, from June 27, 1921, to June 1, 1925; Henry H. Glassie, of the District of Columbia, Democrat, from March 1, 1923, to March 4, 1927, and A. H. Baldwin, of New York, Republican, from June 22, 1925, to July 3. 1926. The pending tariff bill provides for the continuation of the Tariff Commission, The bill as it passed the House of Representatives provided for the reorganization of the commission with seven members for terms of seven years, to be appointed by the President without consideration of the political party to which appointees belonged. The Senate bill provided for the continuation of the bipartisan commission of six members with terms of 6 years, instead of 12 years, as at present. The conferees accepted the Senate proposal. Under the new tariff bill, if passed as now written, the commission will continue to be composed of six members, three Republicans and three Democrats, to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President is required under the new bill as reported by the conferees to reorganize the commission within 90 days from the date he signs the bill. He may appoint six new commissioners or reappoint any of the present members that he may desire to have on the commission. The commission is an important body. If its powers are properly exercised it may do a great public service. Members of the commission have opportunity, by furnishing factual information, to assist the President, the Congress, and the general public, both in the United States and abroad, to a more thorough understanding of the tariff problems. The work of the commission is vital and interesting. DUTIES Until 1909, there was no permanent governmental body expressly organized for the sole purpose of assembling tariff information for Congress during tariff revision and devoting itself at other times to research on tariff problems. The Tariff Board, at the request of President Taft, made a number of careful investigations and reports. Among them were reports on the woolen and cotton industries, with respect to both the raw agricultural products and the manufactures. Much of the data in these reports is still used by Congress during tariff revision. This is especially true with respect to certain statistics necessary to calculate compensatory duties on wool and cotton textiles. The Tariff Board also assembled much information that was useful to Congress during the consideration and preparation of the Underwoo 1-Simmons Act of 1913. The duties of the Tariff Commission since its organization in 1917 may be divided into two parts, (1) the general duties of the commissioner provided for in the tariff act of 1916, and (2) the special duties under the tariff act of 1922. Since the pending tariff bill reenacts the provisions of the acts of 1916 and 1922, pertaining to the general powers of the commission and also in a modified form those having to do with the commission's special duties and responsibilities, such as making investigations to assist the President to adjust the rates of duty, these phases of the commission's work shall be discussed in connection with the provisions in the new tariff bill. General investigations.-Section 332 of part 2 of Title III of the new bill sets forth the duties of the commission under its general powers in the following language: SEC. 332. Investigations.—(a) Investigations and reports: It shall be the duty of the commission to investigate the administration and fiscal and industrial effects of the customs laws of this country now in force or which may be |