Mr. COULTER. No; I think not. I think it is better to put a very definite limitation on the commission, because if the commission finds upon its investigation that the rate should be raised 100 per cent, or lowered 100 per cent on the free list, that would be better to come from the Congress. Senator THOMAS of Oklahoma. Under your present organization, that you should make recommendations covering that one phase, or leave that severely alone? I mean as to the point of putting matters that are on the free list and putting them on the dutiable list, or taking matters from the dutiable list and putting them on the free list. Mr. COULTER. We might make it, anyway. For instance, if the Congress or this committee should ask the commission to investigate a certain commodity, and that investigation was made and it was found that there was no difference between the cost of production here and in the principal competing country, and that the duty was a cent, or a thousand dollars, or whatever it was, or there was no difference, it would be the same as saying that this commodity might just as well be on the free list. Senator SHORTRIDGE. It should not be. You should preserve the American market for the American producer. Mr. COULTER. That is a legislative matter for Congress to decide. Senator SHORTRIDGE. Senator Thomas, this will interest you, I think. Senator THOMAS. I am through, Senator. Senator SHORTRIDGE. You spoke about the carrying out of the policy. The function is not to carry out any general national policy as evidenced by other legislation. It is to carry out the policy intended by Congress by this act. The policy of Congress is evidenced by this act, and when an article is put upon the free list the policy is to keep it there, or if upon the protected list, to keep it on the protected list. I wish that the law would permit the commission to advise Congress in respect to taking an article off the free list and putting it on the protected list. Senator HARRISON. But the Senator did not vote that way. Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes, I did; as in the case of oil, when the Senator from Oklahoma made his great fight for a tariff on oil. I was disappointed and grieved, and I am now greatly disappointed and grieved, that crude petroleum oil which is coming in in millions and billions from Venezuela, is not on the protected list. I voted with the Senator right through. I want this commission to carry out the policy of Congress as it is here set down. Senator HARRISON. The fact that the slightest intimation that you might give some thought to the consumer in the construction of these tariff rates might anger certain gentlemen on the other sidewould that in itself influence you in the discharge of your duties? Mr. COULTER. No, sir. We have to carry out the instructions which the Government has given us. Senator SIMMONS. Mr. Coulter, if I understand you correctly, your position is that Congress having failed to place any duty upon certain articles and the Congress having provided for a raising or increasing of a duty, you would have no jurisdiction whatsoever over the question of whether an article on the free list should be transferred to the dutiable list? Mr. COULTER. Except in the surveys which the commission is charged with making under the general law. Senator SIMMONS. Which is now authorized by Congress under the general law? Mr. COULTER. Yes, sir. Senator SIMMONS. Then your position, further, is to this effect. that in fixing the rates, Congress did define its policy and its intent as to such article? Mr. COULTER. Yes, sir. Senator SIMMONS. If it left it upon the free list, it defined its policy and intent as to that? Mr. COULTER. Yes, sir. Senator SIMMONS. You have nothing to do with the policy of whether a thing should be on the dutiable list or on the free list; but when you come to fix a rate, that is, to recommend a change in rate, you are to consider neither the interest of the consumer nor the interest of the producer, but only the question of whether the cost of production here is higher or lower than that abroad, and to measure that difference, whatever it may be? Mr. COULTER. Yes; by the formula which has been prescribed. Senator SIMMONS. That is what I understand to be the general effect of your testimony. Mr. COULTER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. If there is nothing else, we will excuse you, Mr. Coulter. (Witness excused.) (Whereupon, at 12.40 p. m., the committee, after informal discussion, adjourned, on motion of Senator Barkley, until Monday, December 8, 1930, at 10 o'clock a. m.) CONFIRMATION OF MEMBERS OF UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1930 UNITED STATES SENATE, The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m., in room 312, Senate Office Building, Senator Reed Smoot presiding. Present: Senators Smoot (chairman), Watson, Shortridge, Couzens, Greene, Deneen, Bingham, La Follette, Thomas of Idaho, Simmons, Harrison, King, George, Barkley, Thomas of Oklahoma, and Connally. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order, and we will proceed with the hearings. The next nomination is that of Mr. Alfred P. Dennis, of Maryland, for the term expiring June 16, 1933. STATEMENT OF HON. ALFRED P. DENNIS OF MARYLAND, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION Senator BINGHAM. How long have you been on the commission, Mr. Dennis? Mr. DENNIS. It will be six years next March. Senator BINGHAM. During that time how many reports have been made to the President recommending changes in the tariff? Mr. DENNIS. Fifty. Senator BINGHAM. How many of them were unanimous? Mr. DENNIS. I can not say about the unanimity. I know that the President proclaimed five decreases of duty. Fourteen cases— either 14 or 15-were never heard from after they went to the White House. The other cases were increases. Senator BINGHAM. What is your procedure when three members of the commission are in favor of certain action, and three are opposed? Mr. DENNIS. The reports were always sent to the President with opinions filed in the report on both sides. In one case the President proclaimed a rate of duty based on the opinion of one commissioner as against the opinion of four. Senator SIMMONS. Mr. Dennis, I do not know whether I understood your answer. You say he proclaimed it against the opinion of four and in favor of the opinion of one? Mr. DENNIS. Yes. Senator SIMMONS. What case was that? Mr. DENNIS. That was the cotton-warp knit-glove case. Senator BARKLEY. Whose one opinion was it that he accepted? Mr. DENNIS. I wrote the dissenting opinion, and his proclamation was in accordance with my opinion. Senator BARKLEY. Do you mean that you dissented from the recommendations of the other members? Mr. DENNIS. I did; yes. Senator BARKLEY. Was your dissent for an increase or a decrease? Mr. DENNIS. It was for letting the duty remain as it was. Senator BARKLEY. And he did that? Mr. DENNIS. He did that; yes. Senator GEORGE. In other words, the President declined to interfere with the duty? Mr. DENNIS. He did. Senator BINGHAM. How many decisions have been evenly divided; do you remember? Mr. DENNIS. Let me go back a little, Senator Bingham. When I came on the commission there were three straight Republicans and three nominal Democrats on it. One of those Democrats was Mr. Glassie, originally from Louisiana. So long as I was on the commission he voted consistently with the Republicans, not only on questions of changing duties, the major or more important_questions, but also down to every little detail of personnel. So I was confronted on the commission-that is, from a political angle-with having four men on one side and two on the other. Misery makes strange bedfellows. That threw me with Mr. Costigan. Mr. Costigan wrote a number of dissenting opinions, some of which I agreed to; others I did not. I think in three cases I wrote the dissenting opinions. It is very difficult to say how many cases represented three on one side and three on the other, because throughout that period a great many of the cases were decided on that line of cleavage-four on one side and two on the other. I must say that as a general thing I signed most of the higherduty cases. I am not a free trader. I am a moderate protectionist. I went with the facts. If the facts led me to go with Mr Marvin, Mr Glassie, and his set, I went along with them. I do not want to go into those old. controversies. They were very bitter, very sanguinary, as a result of which we could not decide any question, no matter how minute, unless six men and the secretary sat around a table and discussed everything up to the fifth decimal. That is one explanation of why it took four years and a number of months to put through the Canadian log case, and considerably over four years to put through the cotton hosiery case. Senator GEORGE. You were appointed from what State? Mr. GEORGE. You are a Democrat? Mr. DENNIS. Yes; I am a Democrat, and I am not a spotty Democrat, either. I was a little bit sore, when I was nominated by the President, to have the papers state that I was a nominal Democrat." I am not a nominal Democrat. I am a regular Democrat. I do not think any member of my immediate family, going back for three generations, was ever a Republican; and I can authenticate my standing as a Democrat by producing a document, if necessary. Some years ago a livery stable keeper down in my little townPocomoke, Md.-wrote a will. In that will he provided that democ racy with him was a sort of a religion. He named his pallbearers in that will, and he named men who had never under any conditions scratched a Democratic ticket, or who under any possible supposition ever would. The first man named on that list of pallbearers was the late Senator John Walter Smith, of Maryland, whom perhaps some of you knew. The second name, I am happy to say, was Alfred P. Dennis. So I consider that a certificate of my regularity as a Democrat. That bound me over to rectitude; and if I wanted to vote for a Republican now, I do not feel that in justice to a dead man I could do it. Senator BARKLEY. In other words, he named you as vice chairman of the pallbearers. Senator SHORTRIDGE. Did you attend the funeral? Mr. DENNIS. When he died I was in Europe, so of course I did not act. Senator SHORTRIDGE. You did not serve in that capacity? Mr. DENNIS. No, sir; I was engaged in Europe as a commercial attaché at Rome when the gentleman died, and so could not serve. But, joking aside, I do not want to be ranked as a "nominal Democrat." The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions? Senator BARKLEY. In that connection, the press on yesterday had Senator George and myself classed as straight Republicans in some attitude we had taken in this committee with reference to other members of the Tariff Commission. I am satisfied that was an honest mistake. Senator SHORTRIDGE. There is always chance for reform and improvement, Senator. Senator BARKLEY. There may be chance for reform, but very little for retrogression. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Doctor Dennis, what is your view with regard to the publication of reports after they have been submitted to the President, and a reasonable time has expired in which he could act? Mr. DENNIS. I am on record for the fullest publicity, Senator, with respect to either reports or transactions of the commission. We had a very absurd rule or convention in the old commission that no information should ever be given to anybody as to the exact status of a report. We were not permitted, under the old rules, to state to anyone that a report had been sent to the President. That always seemed to me to be a silly piece of business. We are a public agency, set up to transact the public business. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Do you regard it as a function of the commission to initiate investigations where preliminary studies have shown that a prima facie case has been made for an investigation on the motion of the commission itself? Mr. DENNIS. I have always thought that, because there is no philosophy back of the commission unless it is based on the theory that it is set up to correct inequalities and injustices in tariff rates as they crop out. None of us are perfect. Suppose Congress should frame a perfect tariff bill. There are 21,000 items of commerce that enter our ports; but suppose it were absolutely perfect. We live in a time of flux and |