Senator REED. There is a case pending, and I thought it had been decided.

Senator KING. Let me say that when I was in Russia some years ago I visited all of the mines and went into the homes of the people, and there was not any convict labor or any oppression there. The coal miners got higher wages than almost any other group of people in Russia.

Senator WATSON. How long ago was that?

Senator KING. In 1923; and there has been no change in the situa-. tion there since then.

Senator WATSON. Oh, yes; there has been a great change.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the Treasury Department knows whether there is that kind of labor employed or not, and I shall ask Mr. Eble to tell us about that.

Senator STEIWER. Oh, yes; they know all about it.

The CHAIRMAN. I have asked Mr. Eble to attend and he will tell. us about that later on.

Senator STEIWER. I might say that refugees are coming out of Russia every day, into Finland and other countries of the world, and there are hundreds of men, according to the information brought back, who have worked during the last 12 months, and they come over into the Scandinavian countries; and very many of these people have been contacted by our diplomatic service and by others, and a very great volume of testimony has been accumulated on that subject.

To answer further the question propounded by the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Couzens), I want to call attention to this language for the consideration of the committee, that was in the old law, section 1 of the Kendall bill:

Shall not be applicable to goods, wares, articles, or merchandise so mined, produced, manufactured, transported. handled, loaded, or unloaded which are not mined, produced, or manufactured in such quantities in the United States as to meet the consumptive demands of the United States.

I am told that

Senator COUZENS (interposing). I read that, but the contention of the domestic tobacco producers is that their wrappers are adequate in the matter of supply for the cigar manufacturers. But others contend that it is not.

Senator STEIWER. And that raises a question upon which I am not an authority. But I am told that the House committee, or at least various members of it, took the position that the law as they enacted it would not exclude Sumatra wrappers at all because they regarded. the Sumatra wrapper as a distinctive thing. They said, therefore, there was no production of Sumatra wrappers in this country, and our Sumatra demands were not met by them, and, therefore, that the tobacco people need not trouble their minds about this. I do not know whether that is a sound proposition or not, and of course your judgment, jointly, would be better than ours.

Senator REED. Isn't the Dutch Government getting away from penal labor? I understand that they say they will be entirely in the clear by the date fixed in the tariff law. On the other hand, the Russian Government is getting deeper into this every day.

Senator STEIWER. I think that is true. In connection with that matter I might say that the testimony before the House Committee is to the effect that there is now in the warehouses in this country an unbelievable amount of tobacco wrappers. And I think it is stated that there is enough to make 11,500,000 cigars.

The CHAIRMAN. The largest manufacturer in the United States using Sumatra tobacco as a wrapper was in my office on yesterday, and and he stated that they could not run more than 4 months if this bill should become a law.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. They want the date to go to January 1, 1932, as I understand it.

Senator COUZENS. Yes; they are perfectly satisfied with the Tariff law as it is written, because they can adjust themselves to the situation.

Senator GEORGE. I suppose you want to get the bill through at this session; do you not?

Senator STEIWER. Yes, sir.

Senator WATSON. It is not so important sa far as the tobacco part of the situation is concerned, because neither tobacco nor cigars come from Russia.

Senator GEORGE. Let us treat all industries alike.

Senator REED. We are going to throw about 50,000 men out of employment if you shut down the cigar industry.

Senator STEIWER. And nobody wants to do that. However, the statement was made before the House committee that there is a supply on hand for two years.

The CHAIRMAN. I will try to get in touch with a man who uses more tobacco in his institution than in any other institution in the United States, more Sumatra tobacco. He told me on yesterday that it would be impossible for him to run more than four months if this law is changed.

Senator BINGHAM. I do not think the General Cigar Co., which is evidently the concern you speak of, are properly informed about the matter at all. Of course, they have been fighting us all along. They objected even to a small additional duty being placed upon Sumatra wrappers. But it was stated on the floor of the Senate, on the part of many cigar manufacturers, including many in Pennsylvania, that they could use the domestic wrapper perfectly well if they wanted to. But the fact is that the largest cigar manufacturers, the General Cigar Co., control a large part of this Sumatra supply, and they bring it in cheaper. Now, if you do not do this they are going to be able to bring in before the end of the year enough Sumatra tobacco to put the wrapper growers in this country out of business. And there is a 2-years' supply on hand in warehouses.

Senator CouZENS. That is not the concern Senator Smoot was talking about. The representative of the same concern saw me on yesterday, and they have great factories in Michigan and Ohio, and employ a great number of persons, and they testify that they have only four months' supply.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. At some stage in the matter, I wish to state. and it may be recent, that I favored increased rates on imported wrappers, having regard to Connecticut, Massachusetts, Georgia, and Florida.

Senator KING. And olive oils, and so forth.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. And a few other things. I hold in my hand a telegram from a firm in Los Angeles, and also one from New York, stating as a fact and urging that there is not sufficient here of this quality of wrapper tobacco to carry on if the date is fixed as covered in this bill, April 1, 1931. And as you all know, probably, they ask that the date be as of January 1, 1932. I won't take the time now to read them, but here is a very thoughtful and definite statement.

Senator BINGHAM. May I call attention to the fact that the bill provides that it is not effective if the merchandise so produced is not produced in such quantities in the United States as to meet the consumptive demands in the United States. Therefore, if there is not a sufficient supply on hand, it is not effective in keeping out the Sumatra wrapper tobacco. If there is a sufficient supply to meet the demands, then it is effective. For that reason the objections which have been raised are not in order because the bill particularly provides that there must be a sufficient quantity on hand to meet the consumptive demand.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Who is to determine that vital fact? Senator BINGHAM. I presume it will be determined in a judicial

manner.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. By whom?

Senator BINGHAM. By the Treasury Department.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. But it is not sufficient.

Senator BINGHAM. Then it will not be kept out.

Senator KING. I have several telegrams which indicate that the domestic product is not such as meets the requirements of people from my section of the country. They state here in one telegram that American-grown wrappers can not be substituted in the case of cigars made in the West. And if this should go into effect, then within a very few months it would mean ruin to western cigar manufacturers.

Senator BINGHAM. Then this provision in the bill will protect those people.

Senator KING. It does not protect them, but you will be forcing upon them something that they do not want and something which is not marketable.

Senator BINGHAM. The provisions of the bill are not applicable to goods there produced which are not produced in such quantities from tobacco grown in the United States to meet the consumptive demands. Now, with regard to what the Senator has just said about certain manufacturers claiming that they can not use it, there is just about as much evidence on the one side as on the other. There are manufacturers in the Central West, and it is my recollection that we had testimony from them when the tariff bill was before the Senate, or at least there was a statement from a very large manufacturer, in Minnesota, I think, or it may have been St. Louis, who makes a very large number of cigars, stating that he could and did use American wrapper tobacco entirely, and that it was perfectly satisfactory. There are others who have testified that it is not satisfactory. I am not desirious to raise that question, but I do call attention to the fact that the bill protects the industry which it is claimed would be shut down if this bill were passed.

Senator CONNALLY. It is the nickel cigar that is principally affected, as I understand it.

Senator STEIWER. But as a legal question it is chiefly this: Is the Sumatra wrapper a distinctive article in and of itself? If it is, then comes the answer that there are no Sumatra wrappers produced in this country and this law would not shut them out, because this law only applies to those commodities of which we supply a sufficient quantity to answer our domestic requirements. However, I do not wish to

Senator SHORTRIDGE (interposing). The Connecticut people claim that they grow wrapper tobacco under shade of substantially the same quality as the imported Sumatra tobacco.

Senator STEIWER. If they are right, then the Sumatra wrapper is not a distinctive thing. If they are wrong, it is a distinctive thing. I do not attempt to answer on that matter. The committee's judg ment would be better than mine.

Might I hurry on to some other features in the matter. I am quite content to leave this matter to the superior judgment of the committee. There are two other amendments in this law that I think I know a little more about and in which I am very interested, and both of which I think are supported by the Treasury and the Bureau of Customs.

One is merely to add certain descriptive language. The present section 307 merely covers "Articles mined, produced, or manufactured."

The Treasury Department found in the attempt to administer the law that this was not sufficiently broad. They encountered, at least in one case, where convict labor was not used in the mining or the original production, but was used in transportation, handling, loading or unloading the article at some place along the line between the point of production and up to the time when it was put on board ship. The Kendall bill, therefore, adds to the original language the words "transported, handled, loaded or unloaded."

I will not debate that because I think debate is not necessary, but I am sure the Treasury will recommend the adoption of that language, and it will be very helpful in protecting against convict importations.

The CHAIRMAN. It is in the bill now.

Senator STEIWER. No; but it is in the Kendall bill, not in the original act, section 307. By inadvertence it was omitted. I think it ought to be in. I think the committee will agree to that.

The third amendatory proposition is one that applies to a definite mode or kind of proof:

In any proceeding under or involving the application of any provision of this act reports and depositions of officers or agents of the United States shall be admiss ble in evidence.

This language, I am told, was supported by the Treasury, and was suggested by the difficulties that they met in proving with respect to any Russian importations as to whether the particular cargo is convict made or not. That becomes a difficult question, because out of the White Sea area lumber can be produced in one place, or we will says logs can be cut in one place, and they will be taken by river or rail to another place where they are manufactured. The lumber may then be transshipped to a third place

where it is exported. Some of these places may not use convict labor, while other places do use convict labor. And then when the cases are brought in in connection with those goods, it is very difficult for the Treasury to prove the exact facts with respect to the cargo all the way along the line. They are not able to identify this lumber except that they know that it comes from this place or that. They are not able to identify that the particular boards or sticks were made by convict labor, and yet they may have literally a truckload of general information coming from their own investi ́gators in adjoining countries, from our consular service, and from the Treasury agents, proof that is all of of the very highest value in a general class, but of course in a customs court they can not use it. The Secretary of the Treasury could use it, and the Bureau of Customs in their action may use it, but upon appeal to the customs court, it could not be used, but would go out because hearsay.

Senator HARRISON. The Treasury Department has ruled that proof was incumbent upon the importer to show that it was not made by forced labor. What do you think about broadening that to 'make that proof necessary by the importer?

Senator STEIWER. I personally should favor that, but I came into this room this morning hoping that as little amendment as possible 'might be added to the bill. I am quite in earnest that it should be passed and I do not want to get it tangled up so as to be subject to adverse action.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Senator Steiwer, you do not suppose that this bill could be considered in the Senate without having a number of amendments offered to it, do you? In other words, don't you think that those advocating an embargo on oil and farm products are going to seize this opportunity to get consideration for their legislation?

Senator STEIWER. I imagine of course that some effort will be made by those favoring an embargo. I do not know what the attitude of the committee will be in regard to that. My own attitude. would be to resist that kind of amendment at this time. It seems to me it would lead us into countless difficulties.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I agree with you, but you just expressed the hope that this bill would pass without amendment, and I am pointing out to you that there are other people in the Senate who are just as much interested in their particular desires, for certain embargoes, as you are for the passage of this bill.

Senator STEIWER. Well, I am not interested in any embargo. I favor this Kendall legislation and the attitude of the Treasury with respect to this whole subject, because I thought it was advisable to stay away from the embargo for a while.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. This is dealing with slave or indentured or forced labor.

Senator STEIWER. This effort is merely against tainted goods that may come from foreign countries. It does not raise any international question by embargoing goods from any part of the world. I thought that was superior. Of course, efforts will be made to amend the bill, but they may not command enough votes to wreck this movement. In other words, it may not result in amending the bill.