Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. Brossard. I wanted the meaning of the paragraph to be perfectly clear, and according to my ideas of what the paragraph orig. inally said I drafted this paragraph as submitted here, and I would like, if it is possible, to put that in the record so that it will be exactly as it was drafted, and then it can stand.

Senator HARRISON. I think all three of these statements ought to go in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no objection.

Senator HARRISON. The first draft, the final draft, and also this press release.

Mr. BROSSARD. That [indicating] is the original draft. This [indicating] is the revision suggested by me of the first two paragraphs.

(The statements referred to are as follows:)

UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION,

Washington, D. C. Press NOTICE No. 1-15

(Confidential, for release May 1930. As originally drafted by staff expert.)

Agriculture will benefit to the extent of approximately 68 per cent of the tariff advances under the bill of 1930, on imports of agricultural raw materials, industrial products made from such materials, and for other industrial products, to that of 32 per cent for industrial products, according to calcuJations of the United States Tariff Commission as of May 15, 1930, made public to-day in a summary based upon imports in 1928 by schedules of calculated revenue and equivalent ad valorem rates of duty of the commodities in question.

Figuring $522,649,383 as the grand total of duties in 1928 on comparable agricultural and industrial products, for which rates on an ad valorem equivalent basis can be calculated for both the act of 1922 and the bill of 1930, the commission calculates the total duties that would have been received on these products, if the imports were the same as in 1928, under the bill of 1930 at $629,076,152, or an advance of $106,426,769,

Duties on agricultural raw materials in 1928, together with the compensatory part of the duties on the industrial products made from such raw materials, the commission calculates amounted to $221,077,571, while the total duties on all of these products under the bill of 1930. are calculated at $293,258,895, the advance being $72.181,314.

Sonsidering that the grand total of duties for agricultural and industrial products under the bill of 1930 is calculated to exceed the duties on the same products in 1928 by $106,426,769, and the calculations for 1930 on agricultural raw materials, together with the compensatory duties for agricultural raw materials on the industrial commodities, exceed the figures of 1928 by $72,181,314, the commission has therefore figured that agriculture has secured the major portion of the additional protection under the bill of 1930 and over that of the act of 1922, to the extent of approximately 68 per cent to 32 per cent advance for industrial products.

Actual or computed ad valorem rates of total duties as figured by the commission follow:

[merged small][ocr errors]

UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION,

Washington, D. C. PRESS NOTICE No. 1-15

(Confidential, for release May 1930. As originally revised by the chairman, Mr. Brossard.)

Agriculture will benefit by the new tariff bill. Based upon 1928 imports, approximately 68 per cent of the increase of total duties is on imports of agricultural raw materials and as compensatory duties on industrial products made from such raw materials. One-third (32 per cent) of the total increase

" : THE

in duties under the new bill is on industrial products. These facts are shown by calculations just put out by the United States Tariff Commission,

The total revenue collected on imports for consumption in 1928 was $542,242,592. Of that amount, $522,649,383 was collected in 1928 on items that are comparable and for which duties can be calculated on the 1928 statistics for the new tariff bill. The duties under the new tar.ff bill for these comparable items based on 1928 imports would be $629,076,152, or an increase in total duties for these comparable items of $106,426.769. Of this total increase. $72,181,314 is the result of increases in duties on agrieultural raw materials and the compensatory part of the duties on the industrial products that are made from such raw materials.

UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION,

Washington, D. C. PRESS NOTICE No. 1-15

Agriculture will benefit greatly by the new tariff bill. Based upon 1928 imports, approximately 68 per cent of the increase of total duties is on imports of agricultural raw materials and as compensatory duties on industrial products made from such raw materials. Approximately one-third (32 per cent) of the total increase in duties under the new bill is on industrial products. These facts are shown by calculations just put out by the United States Tariff Commission.

The total revenue collected on imports for consumption in 1928 was $512,242,592, and of that amount $522,649,383 was collected on items that are comparable and for which duties can be calculated on 1928 statistics for the new tariff bill.

The duties under the new tariff bill for these comparable items based on 1928 imports would be $629,076,152, or an increase in total duties for these comparable items of $106,426,769. Of this total increase, $72,181,314 is the result of increases in duties on agricultural raw materials and the compensatory part of the duties on industrial products that are made from such raw materials.

Actual or computed ad valorem rates of total duties as figured by the commission follow:

Total for agricultural raw materials, 38.10 per cent, act of 1922, and 48.92 per cent, pending tariff bill; total for industrial products made from agricultural raw materials and having compensatory duties for the duties on such materials, 36.15 per cent, act of 1922, and 48.87 per cent, pending tariff bill ; industrial prorlucts from other sources, 31.02 per cent, act of 1922, and 31.31 per cent, pending tariff bill. The grand total for agricultural and industrial products is calculated at 33.99 per cent, act of 1922, and 40.91 per cent, pending tariff bill.

Figures of the commission as to the several commodity groups under consideration are as follows:

Agricultural raw materials : Schedule 5, sugar, molasses, and manufactures of, imports of 1928, $173,714,810, with total duties, act of 1922, $118,145,366, and pending tariff bill, $134,512.840. Actual or computed ad valorem rate of total duties, act of 1922, 68.01 per cent, and pending tariff bill, 77.43 per cent. Schedule 6, tobacco and manufactures of, imports of 1928, $44,368,729, with total duties, act of 1922, $30,612,771, and pending tariff bill, $31,669,177. Rate of total duties, 1922, 69 per cent, and pending bill, 71.38 per cent. Schedule 7, agricultural products and provisions, imports of 1928$173,488,029, with total duties, act of 1922, $29,652,007, and pending tariff bill, $57,865,481. Rate of total duties, 1922, 17.09 per cent, and pending bill, 33.335 per cent. Schedule 11, wool and manufactures of, imports of 1928, $39,431,815, with total duties, 1922, $16,829,609, and pending bill, $18,495,680. Rate of total duties, 1922, 42.68 per cent, and pending bill 46.91 per cent. Schedule 15, sundries, imports of 1928, $81,446,857, with total duties, 1922, free, and pending bill, $8,144,686. Rate of total duties, 1922, free, pending bill, 10 per cent. Total imports for agricultural raw materials in 1928, $512,150,270.

Industrial products made from agricultural raw materials and having compensatory duties for the duties on such materials: Schedule 1, chemicals, oils, and paints, imports of 1928, $3,797,841, with total duties, act of 1922, $754,449, and pending bill, $1,614,907. Rate of total duties. 1922, 19.87 per cent, and pending bill, 42.52 per cent. Schedule 5, sugar, molasses, and manufactures of, imports of 1928, $955,755, with total duties, act of 1922, $382,243, and pending bill, $382,243. Rate of total duties, 1922, 39.99 per cent, and pending bill, 39.99 per cent. Schedule 6, tobacco and manufactures of, imports of 1928, $17,949,895, with total duties, act of 1922, $8,702,020, and pending bill, $8,702,020. Rate of total duties, 1922, 48.48 per cent, and pending bill, 48.48 per cent. Schedule 7, agricultural products and provisions, imports of 1928, $60,060,697, with total duties, act of 1922, $16,479,630, and pending bill, $26,210,311. Rate of total duties, 1922, 27.47 per cent, and pending bill, 43.64 per cent. Schedule 9, cotton manufactures, im its of 1928, $36,992,017, with total duties, act of 1922, $14,993,353, and pending bill, $17,355,751. Rate of total duties, 1922, 40.53 per cent, and pending bill, 46.92 per cent. Schedule 11, wool and manufactures of, imports of 1928, $38,607,686, with total duties, act of 1922, $24,814,568, and pending bill, $31,643,845. Rate of total duties, 1922, 64.27, and pending bill, $1.96. Schedule 15, sundries, imports of 1928, $24,698,566, with total duties, act of 1922, $50,344, and pending bill, $3,563,813. Rate of total duties, 1922, 0.20 per cent, and pending bill, 14.43 per cent. Total imports of industrial products made from agricultural raw materials and having compensatory duties for the duties on such materials, $183,062,487.

Industrial products made from other than agricultural raw materials: Schedule 1, chemicals, oils, and paints, imports of 1928, $90,955,056, with total duties, act of 1922, $26,934,500, and pending bill, $28,133,246. Rate of total duties, 1922, 29.61 per cent, and pending bill, 30.93 per cent. Schedule 2, earths, earthenware, and glassware, imports of 1928, $55,921,814, with total duties, act of 1922, $25,511,007, and pending bill, $29,995,159. Rate of total duties, 1922, 45,62 per cent, and pending bill, 53.64 per cent. Schedule 3, metals and manufactures of, imports of 1928, $118,658,708, with total duties, act of 1922, $10,003,772, and pending bill, $41,537,266. Rate of total duties, 1922, 33.71 per cent, and pending bill, 35,01 per cent. Schedule 4, Wood and manufactures of, imports of 1928, $17,088,067, with total duties, act of 1922, $4,191,356, and pending bill, $1,139,242. Rate of total duties, 1922, 24.53 per cent, and pending bill, 24.22 per cent. Schedule 5, sugar, molasses, and manufactures of, imports of 1928, $89,078, with total duties, act of 1922, $44,500, and pending bill, $14,505. Rate of total duties, 1922, 49.96 per cent, and pending bill, 19.96 per cent. Schedule 7, agricultural products and provisions, imports of 1928, $89,260,069, with total duties, act of 1922, $17,992,767, and pending bill, $25,664,366. Rate of total duties, 1922, 20.16 per cent, and pending bill, 28.75 per cent. Schedule 8, spirits, wines, and beverages, imports of 1928, $1,433,616, with total duties, act of 1922, $523,015, and pending bill, $680,069. Rate of total duties, 1922, 36.18 per cent, and pending bill, 47.44 per cent. Schedule 9, cotton manufactures, imports of 1928, $11,308,562, with total duties, act of 1922, $4,458,011, and pending bill, $5,066,447. Rate of total duties, act of 1922, 39.42 per cent, and pending bill, 44.81 per cent. Schedule 10, flax, hemp, jute and manufactures of, imports of 1928. $133,207,491, with total duties, act of 1922, $24,191.702, and perding bill, $25,500,925. Rate of total duties, 1922, 18.16 per cent, and pending bill, 19.14 per cent. Schedule 11, wool and manufactures of, imports of 1928, $38,303,895, with total duties, act of 1922, $15,992,464, and pending bill, $19,469,716. Rate of total duties, 1922, 49.54 per cent, and pending bill, 59.83 per cent. Schedule 12. manufactures of silk, imports of 1928, $32.410,182, with total duties, act of 1922, $18,318,161, and rending bill, $19,181.350. Rate of total duties, 1922, 56.56 per cent, and pendling bill, 59.13 per cent. Schedule 13, manufactures of rayon, imports of 1928, $11,125,596, with total duties, act of 1922, $6,019,359, and rending bill, $6.126,964. Rate of total duty, 1922. 52.68 per cent, and pending bill, 53.62 per cent. Schedule 14. papers and books, imports of 1928, $20,666,437, with total duties, act of 1922, $5,113.098, and reading bill, $5,385,775. Rate of total duties, 1922, 24.74 per cent, and pending bill, 26.06 per cent.

Schedule 15, Sundries, imports of 1928, $221,359,369, with total duties, act of 1922, $71,909,281, and pending bill, $77,959,978. Rate of total duties, 1922, 32.19 per cent, and pending bill, 35.23 per cent. Total imports for industrial products mac. fron other thai agricultural raw materials, $812,117,940.

Senator HARRISON. Who put the word “greatly" in there?

Mr. BROSSARD. When it came back to me after I had handed this to Mr. Conrad, who is sitting here in the rear of the room, Mr. Conrad brought it back, redrafted, with the word “greatly" put in there.

THE

***

" : THE

Senator HARRISON. He thought he had improved it?

Mr. BROSSARD. He thought he had improved it. I said to him, “Why did you put the word “greatly' in there? He replied, “I think the word 'greatly' should be in there, because the facts warrant it."

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. Brossard. He said, “ 68 per cent of the increase being, on agricultural products, the word 'greatly’ should be in there." I said, “Well, when you take that report to Commissioner Dennis I want you to call his attention to the fact that that first sentence has been revised like that." Conrad took the report, because I did not want to be responsible for it alone, or solely-although it would have been perfectly all right from my point of view. I thought it was correct.

Senator HARRISON. You noticed that when you said Mr. Conrad said the word “greatly” ought to be in there that the chairman of the committee, from your State, said, “ Certainly”; and the gentleman from California here nods his head vigorously.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. When you said 68 per cent, of course, you took into consideration that we have 7 cents on long-staple cotton, largely due to the masterly support of that proposition by the Senator from Mississippi.

Senator HARRISON. Are you for that? Mr. BROSSARD. Am I for it? Senator HARRISON. Have you any opinion on that proposition? Mr. BROSSARD. The experts came to me before they came over to advise with you about it, Senator, to ask me what I thought about it.

Senator HARRISON. What did you tell them?

Mr. BROSSARD. I said I thought the rate of duty on long-staple cotton would be about as effective as the rate of duty on hard spring wheat; that we had about the same situation in cotton as we did with respect to spring wheat, and that I thought it would help the cotton growers in the United States, especially the growers of longstaple cotton. Mr. Lowry then came to the committee and made his statement.

Senator HARRISON. I hope you will ascertain the facts, and if the facts warrant a duty on it, I hope you will leave it; and if they do not, I hope you will take it off.

Mr. BROSSARD. The commission will ascertain the facts, all right, and report them as they are.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Have you a report before your commission now on that?

Mr. BROSSARD. I do not think so.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I hope you will bear in mind what it costs to raise cotton in Egypt, as compared with Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Mississippi, and California.

Senator CouZENS. I object to this intimidation of the commissioners here.

Mr. BROSSARD. I would like to finish this statement of mine about the press release. After Mr. Conrad left my office, he took the statement with him, and the next morning brought it back to my desk.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. What is the materiality of all this?

Mr. BROSSARD (continuing). With this statement upon it from Commissioner Dennis :

This is a good piece of work and should stand as written, but would it not be well to turn out a briefer and more newsy story that might have a run in the more popular papers?

Senator HARRISON. That was the notation put there by Docter
Dennis?

Mr. BROSSARD. That was the notation put there by Doctor Dennis.
Senator LA FOLLETTE. Was that on the original draft?
Mr. BROSSARD. That was on the draft as sent to the press.

Senator HARRISON. Let us get that straight. You heard Doctor
Dennis's testimony this morning?

Mr. BROSSARD. Yes.

Senator HARRISON. In which he said that the first draft that came to him, which is in there, did not say that agriculture would be greatly benefited by this act.

Mr. BROSSARD. That is right. I do not know whether he saw this statement indicating at all or not.

Senator Harrison. Did he put his notation on that draft, or did he put it on the second draft, that stated that agriculture will be greatly benefited ?

Mr. BROSSARD. His note was appended to the statement which said, “Agriculture will be greatly benefited by the new tariff bill."

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dennis may not have read it carefully.
Mr. BROSSARD. He may not have read this carefully.
Senator HARRISON. Did you discuss it with Doctor Dennis?

Mr. BROSSARD. No, sir. I will tell you what happened. I asked Mr. Conrad, even after he had come back, whether or not Mr. Dennis had seen the report, and he said he had it something like three or four hours, and this is the memorandum appended in his handwriting, and it is attached to the document as indicated.

Senator Couzens. Can you understand, then, why he should say that he wanted to do penance for that statement after attaching that note?

Mr. BROSSARD. Yes; I will tell you why I think Doctor Dennis wanted to make the statement. I think that Doctor Dennis saw this draft (indicating), the original draft, that did not have that statement in there. I did not know that Conrad had submitted it to him beforehand, and Doctor Dennis read it over, and when it came back to him for signature, he probably thought it was just the same as it was in the original draft.

Senator HARRISON. That is what Doctor Dennis stated.
The CHAIRMAN. That is what he testified.

Mr. BROSSARD. That is what he has testified to here. In the meantime, I did not know that it had ever been submitted to Doctor Dennis, but Conrad submitted the statement to me and I revised the statement and asked him to pay particular attention to see that it was called to Doctor Dennis's at ention. So he went back with this statement to Doctor Dennis, and I presume he did not get to see Doctor Dennis at all, from his testimony this morning. Conrad probably did not get to see Doctor Dennis to tell him specifically that I had revised this first sentence, but I had asked Conrad to see that Doctor Dennis saw this first sentence. Then, when the state

[ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »