INVESTIGATION OF THE TARIFF COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 1927 UNITED STATES SENATE, SELECT COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION OF TARIFF COMMISSION, Washington, D. C. The select committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 o'clock a. m., in the minority conference room, Capitol, Senator Joseph T. Robinson (chairman), presiding. Present: Senators Robinson (chairman), Wadsworth, and La Follette. Chairman ROBINSON. The select committee will resume its hearings this morning, with the expectation that all hearings will be concluded within a few days. Is Mr. Fox present? STATEMENT OF A. M. FOX, CHIEF OF ECONOMICS DIVISION AND CHAIRMAN OF ADVISORY BOARD, UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION (The witness was duly sworn by the chairman and was examined and testified as follows:) Chairman ROBINSON. Senator La Follette, will you examine the witness? Senator LA FOLLETTE. Mr. Fox, will you please state your name and your connection with the Tariff Commission? Mr. Fox. A. A. Fox, Chief of the Economics Division and chairman of the advisory board. Senator LA FOLLETTE. What education had you had? What was your occupation before you joined the staff of the Tariff Commission? Mr. Fox. I hold a degree from Cornell University and master of arts from New York University. I have done graduate work in economics at Michigan, Columbia, and New York University. Senator LA FOLLETTE. At what time did you join the staff of the commisison and in what capacity, approximately? Mr. Fox. Well, I remember it distinctly. It was May 31, 1923. I remember it because I discovered that May 31 was not on the pay calendar of the Government. I joined as an economist under Dean John R. Turner, chief economist. Senator LA FOLLETTE. How long did you serve before you were promoted to the position of chief economist? Mr. Fox. I do not hold the title of chief economist. I am Chief of the Economics Division. Dean Turner resigned in September, 1924, and I was acting in charge from September until some time in the spring of 1925, when I was officially put in charge of the Economics Division and made chairman of the advisory board. Senator LA FOLLETTE. What were your original duties? Mr. Fox. Those of any economist on the staff-studying reports. analyzing reports, preparing statements and reports on various subjects. Senator LA FOLLETTE. When you were made chief of the Economics Division, was that in the nature of the creation of a new position? As I understand it, Doctor Turner was called “chief economist." Mr. Fox. Yes. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Is there any difference in the duties which you perform and Doctor Turner performed? Mr. Fox. None. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Then, as I understand it, it is merely a change in the title? Mr. Fox. And a difference in salary. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Would you care to state what the difference in salary is? Mr. Fox. I receive $6,000. My predecessor received $7,500. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Yet you perform the same functions which your predecessor performed? Mr. Fox. I believe I do. I hope I do. Senator LA FOLLETTE. In the discharge of your duties as Chief of the Economics Division have you had a good deal to do with the supervision of reports made to the commission? Mr. Fox. Pardon me. Senator LA FOLLETTE. In the discharge of your duties as Chief of the Economics Division have you had much to do with the supervision of reports from that division to the commission? Mr. Fox. Yes; a great deal. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Could you give a list of the reports which you have supervised the preparation of? Mr. Fox. Every report? Senator LA FOLLETTE. You go over every report before it is made to the commission? Mr. Fox. Not only every report, but every version of it; every draft of it before it reaches its final stage; before it gets to the commission. Senator LA FOLLETTE. One of the subjects of interest to this com mission is the procedure of the Tariff Commission. Has that procedure changed under your supervision as Chief of the Economics Division, as contrasted with the procedure which was in vogue under Doctor Turner as chief economist? Mr. Fox. Slightly. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Could you briefly point out the difference? Mr. Fox. The rules of the commission call for the composition of the advisory board to be made up of chief of the economics division, chief investigator, chief of the legal division, chief of the commodity division whose subject is being considered, an economist who has been working upon the subject, and another economist who may be assigned. In other words, officially, by the rules, the advisory board consists of six members under the rule of section 8 of the rules of July 20, 1923. Of course, anyone who has something to contribute or who may have information along any line in which the advisory board is interested is called in as a participant, but not officially as a member of the advisory board. The last two years we have gotten away from that, slightly. We have attempted to correct some of the defects which appeared to develop in the reports, and which seemed to develop from the fact that the economist did not have the opportunity of getting into the investigation in the early stages. So that instead of having two economists, sitting, necessarily, as a matter of formality and signing the report, the last two years the economists have been assigned to the investigation from the very beginning. They have gone out in the field to do preliminary work with the commodity men, if such was necessary. They have helped in drawing up the plans of investigation. They have assisted in getting up the schedules. They have gone out with the crews doing the work for a while, and then, as the work was proceeding, they would keep in touch with it, and then when the time came for tabulations, they would look over the form to be used, to see that the significant information was being brought together and then when the report was prepared-the report usually originates in the commodity division-they would cooperate in the preparation of the report, rather as in former days when the economist would get in at the eleventh hour, and merely act as a destructive critic. In other words, the economist now sitting in the advisory board sits as an intelligent member who has participated in every stage of the investigation, from the very beginning, and you can readily see that with the limited staff, it would be difficult to literally carry out this provision of having two economists do the work in just that fashion in all of these cases. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Mr. Fox, do you recommend any changes or improvements with respect to the advisory board or the material submitted by it to the commission? Mr. Fox. I should hope there would be room for improvement. Senator LA FOLLETTE. I mean have you any specific suggestions to make. Mr. Fox. Well, my aim has been to strengthen the work of the advisory board, making it more thorough, and, of course, that is only possible by having the most capable men on the board and having the work carried through very carefully. In other words, the opportunity for improvement comes in time. Those improvements that have been made in the last two years have been made as the result of the advisory board's experience with the operation of section 315, and changes have been made at those points as would strengthen the work of the board. I believe the major change would be in recognizing the fact that the work of the Tariff Commission involves economic problems, and secondarily, and only incidentally, technical problems. Perhaps the major change would be one of emphasis, making certain that that phase of the work which seems to be in the fore should receive the greatest emphasis. In other words, less emphasis upon the technical data and more upon the economic phase of it. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Have any efforts been made since you have been chief of the economics division, by commissioners or outside. persons, to interfere with your handling of the advisory board's reports or material? Mr. Fox. None. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Is the advisory board, in your opinion, adequately supplied with such expert aid of qualified economists and others as it should be to adequately perform the arduous duties that are imposed on it? Mr. Fox. Why, everybody can always use as many strong men as they possibly can get. I should be more than happy if my force would be doubled or trebled, but, of course, one has to consider the funds of the commission and the requirements of the various divisions. May I also say that changes toward improvement are being -made all the time? Senator LA FOLLETTE. I realize that this question may be somewhat embarrassing; and if so, I do not press you to answer it. Would you describe the men on the staff, economists, as men of outstanding ability and training? Mr. Fox. In the main; yes. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Would you say that they are equally paid with respect to their ability? Mr. Fox. Mr. Senator, I do not determine the pay of the members of the staff. Senator LA FOLLETTE. I understand that. Mr. Fox. I think that is a commission problem; that is a relative problem. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Perhaps I had better put my question a little more bluntly. Are the positions on the economic staff of the commission filled entirely upon the basis of ability and training, or does so-called political influence or preferment enter into the selection and the salaries paid to men on the staff of the Economics Division? Mr. Fox. I frankly confess I would not be a very good judge, because my experience in politics is rather short; only the last three and a half years, so I could not say. Senator LA FOLLETTE. I am not asking you for your opinion as to whether or not politics interfere more or less with the Tariff Commission than with other commissions, but what I am trying to get at is whether or not the members of the staff of the Economics Division are chosen entirely on their merits and their training as economists or whether there is political influence and preferment given to men, regardless of their training and ability to perform the work. Mr. Fox. Mr. Senator, that question involves my passing judgment upon my superior officers. I believe that it involves relative matters. I believe that they pass upon the appointments and that they take into consideration such factors as they believe are pertinent. Senator LA FOLLETTE. I realize your reluctance to answer such a question, but it seems to me it is very important to this committee to know whether or not the economics staff of the commission is made up entirely of men who are chosen for their ability and their fitness for the work that they are doing, because, after all, a great deal of the work of the commission must be based upon the sort of reports that are turned in from the Economics Division. It seems to me also that, assuming for the moment they are not selected upon the basis of their training and ability, it must have an unfortunate effect upon the morale of the entire staff of the Economics Division. I am not asking the question in order to embarrass you, but what I am trying to get at, I think you will see, is whether or not this question of political influence and selection of men for the staff is working in the direction of building up the staff of experts and disinterested men who are qualified to do the work or whether political influence is tending to prevent that sort of a staff being built up. Mr. Fox. It seems to me, if I analyze your question correctly-and I am very anxious to answer it as far as I can-your question would involve my interpretation of the motives of the commissioners when they are considering the applicants, and it does not seem I would be in a position to understand what motives were uppermost in their minds. Merit and ability, of course, are, after all, relative matters. The members of my own division are not all of equal ability. Some are much stronger than others. Some are much more reliable than others, some are much more thorough than others. Sometimes we expect a certain man to be very strong upon his paper merits, and he turns out to be very poor. We have instances of that. We had an instance of that only recently. Other times men appear to give rather a poor impression and turn out to be very good. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Has the morale of the staff improved since you have been Chief of the Economics Division, or has it not? Mr. Fox. I hope my being chief has not affected it. Senator LA FOLLETTE. That inference was not intended, of course; but you are in charge of this work and you are observing the situation of the staff all the time. What I would like to know is whether, in your opinion, the morale of the staff has improved since your knowledge and acquaintance with it, or whether it has not improved. Mr. Fox. It has not improved. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Is the morale of the staff lower than it was formerly? Mr. Fox. I should say, on the whole, somewhat. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Can you tell us why? Mr. Fox. Well, it would be rather difficult for me to say. Senator LA FOLLETTE. That must be a matter of some concern to you. Mr. Fox. It is a matter of very grave concern. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Do you not feel that the effectiveness of the work of the commission is very much wrapped up with the morale of the staff and the situation that exists in the Economics Division? Mr. Fox. The uncertainties in the commission in the last few years, of course, have been such as to naturally create uncertainty in the staff. Senator LA FOLLETTE. This committee, before the summer adjournment, heard a great deal of testimony about the sugar report which was originally submitted to the President on August 1, 1924. Other material was sent to the President in response to further requests from him in the fall of 1924. Were you connected with the commission during the period of the preparation of the report for the President? Mr. Fox. The sugar report? 28096-30-17 |