per acre, and other costs correspondingly high, the cost of producing sugar beets in California would be enormous, wouldn't it?

Mr. BROSSARD. I will tell you exactly what it was, Senator. The costs of production of sugar beets in California, as found in that investigation, were as follows: In 1921, $86.71; in 1922, $83.14; in 1923, $84.67; and for the average of the three years, $85.34, which is not very much higher than the other costs per acre.

Chairman ROBINSON. In what portions of the State do the California sugar-beet lands that you included in your investigation lie? Mr. BROSSARD. The areas investigated in California in this investigation were grouped around Salinas, Oxnard, and Santa Ana, along the coast, or rather, close to the coast.

Chairman ROBINSON. Did you take note of the value of other plow lands? I believe that is the way you designated it.

Mr. BROSSARD. We had those data.

Chairman ROBINSON. In the same neighborhood?

Mr. BROSSARD. Yes, sir; in the same neighborhood, as we did the others.

Chairman ROBINSON. How about the values of other plow lands, compared with the sugar-beet land values in California?

Mr. BROSSARD. In some of these districts the other cultivated land in California, a large proportion of it, was very much higher in value than this. It amounted in some cases to $1,000 and $1,500 per

acre.

Chairman ROBINSON. Farm lands?

Mr. BROSSARD. Fruit lands, yes, sir; and the sugar beets in the Santa Ana area, for example, were grown in areas near which there were many, many acres valued at $1,000 and $1,500 per acre, and that is true in a comparative sense in the other areas. There are lands

right near these lands for which we have cost data, which have very low values. The values may run from $25 an acre to $1,500 an acre, even near where these data were taken, and some of the land right near is a total waste; it can not be used, the irrigation water is not on the land, you can not get it on the land, and it is too rough to be irrigated, and therefore can not be used.

Chairman ROBINSON. What gives that land any value at all for farming purposes?

Mr. BROSSARD. The production of crops.

Chairman ROBINSON. Do they produce crops without irrigation? Mr. BROSSARD. Oh, no.

Chairman ROBINSON. I thought you said that they had no water there and could not get water.

Mr. BROSSARD. You mean the value of the $25 land?

Chairman ROBINSON. Yes; the land that has a nominal value that lies right close.

Mr. BROSSARD. The land which has just a nominal value may produce some of the very light crops.

Chairman ROBINSON. Even though no water is used?

Mr. BROSSARD. Even though no water is used; for pasture or something of that kind, turning stock in, but the other land has to have water. It would have to have water to produce any crops.

Chairman ROBINSON. And the pasture lands run how high? Mr. BROSSARD. I do not know specifically. I would say that good pasture land in California in this district would run, if it was

irrigated pasture, which all good pasture in these districts would have to be, would run around from $300 to $500 an acre.

Chairman ROBINSON. Again we say, " Wonderful California."

Mr. BROSSARD. We will have to admit that. In the State of Idaho also the land rental was found to be in 1921, $16.30; in 1922, $14; in 1923, $11.83; and for the average of the three years $14.01, and 6 per cent interest on the other capital invested in sugar-beet production on the average for the three years was found to be $2.16 per acre.

For the State of Montana the costs per acre for the use of land were found to be as follows: In 1921, $11.58; in 1922, $9.89; in 1923, $8.76; and on the average for the three years, $9.95, and the interest on the other capital invested in sugar-beet production on the average for the three years was found to be $1.69.

Senator, I should like to take about 10 minutes, or 5 minutes, to comment on some specific testimony which has been given with respect to me personally by the former witnesses before this committee. Chairman ROBINSON. All right.

Mr. BROSSARD. It has been stated that during my connection with the commission as an expert on the staff of the Tariff Commission, I had come to be known around the Tariff Commission as a rather active partisan of the sugar-beet interests. One of the commissioners may have suspicioned" or "heard" or started a "rumor” to that effect. There was not then, nor never has been, any foundation in fact for either such rumor or any such suspicion; nor has there been any evidence produced in this investigation to show that I have done anything at all to cause such suspicions or such rumors. It has been stated also by a former witness that I came to the staff of the commission without the immediate personal meeting of the commissioners to which I would have been subject had the investigation in which I was brought in not been somewhat unusual. For a complete answer to this charge I refer the committee to the statement of my work and employment submitted by me on Monday. This correspondence that was submitted shows also that no one. had anything to do with my employment as agricultural economist on the staff of the Tariff Commission, except the Tariff Commission, who thought me qualified for the work, and President E. G. Peterson, of the agricultural college, who, in accordance with the request of the commission, merely asked me if I cared to go with the commission temporarily to work on the sugar-beet investigation, and who acted as intermediary in making the arrangements.

I want to say further that I have never at any time been employed in any way whatsoever by the sugar interests, nor do I nor does any member of my family have any financial interest in the sugar industry or any other industry, so far as I can find out, upon which there is a protective tariff.

I have furthermore never in any way been connected with the sugar lobby, so that my appointment in no way was connected with or a reward for any activity on my part in connection with the sugar lobby. I did not even know the Washington representatives of the sugar industry and had nothing whatsoever to do with any of

them.

It has been stated also by a former witness before this committee

Chairman ROBINSON (interposing). Would you mind inserting there the name of the witness? I think it would be helpful.

Mr. BROSSARD. Commissioner Dennis.

Chairman ROBINSON. Do that hereafter when you refer to witnesses, if you do not mind.

Mr. BROSSARD. Commissioner Costigan and Commissioner Culbertson referred to the other matters.

It has been stated by Mr. Dennis that "it has been the deliberate purpose of the majority members of the commission (Marvin, Glassie, Baldwin, and Brossard) to break the workings of the flexible tariff law."

I want to state that I am now and always have been in favor of the flexible tariff law. I believe that section 315 is workable, both for decreases as well as increases in the duties, and that it is possible, at least in a great majority of the cases, to determine the costs of production of articles in the United States and likewise for similar articles in the principal competing countries, for the purpose of equalizing the cost differences by customs duties.

I came on the commission with the definite desire to do all in my power to assist in expediting and making effective the work of the commission on investigations under section 315, as well as those under the general powers of the commission. I have not changed that desire nor my efforts at any time since I took the oath of office; and, furthermore, the records of my activities can not be construed in such a way as to show any action on my part that either has delayed or was calculated to delay or hinder or break the workings of the flexible tariff law.

This former witness cites one specific instance in which he charges that I contributed to the delay in the preparation of the cottonhosiery report. His testimony is as follows, and it may be found on pages 390 and 391 of the printed report of the testimony before this committee:

Straightway Commissioner Brossard intervened to prevent immediate consideration of cotton hosiery by his motion that a committee consisting of the chairman, Commissioners Dennis and Baldwin be appointed to prepare a draft of the factual section of the cotton-hosiery report.

Now, let us turn to the record of the commission's meeting of that day and see exactly what happened. It will be found on page 365 of the published minutes of the commission. It must be remembered in this connection that the commission had under consideration the butter report and that the commission had had the butter report before it for a number of meetings. We had, I think, gone through the report up to something like page 40. We were getting to somewhat of a standstill because of differences of opinion that were being expressed, and it was hard for six of us there to express them all around the board and get any definite statement down in black and white.

Upon motion of Commissioner Dennis, therefore, it was voted that a committee be appointed to complete the draft of the factual section of the report on butter. The chairman appointed as members of the committee thus authorized Commissioners Glassie, Costigan, and Brossard.

I want to show you what that situation was. Here there are only six commissioners. Three of the commissioners by a vote of the

commission, had been assigned to work on the butter report. That work would employ these three commissioners morning and afternoon, because we are anxious to get the work done, we wanted to expedite it as fast as possible, and as fast as was consistent with a thorough job on that report.

That was the reason for appointing this committee to work on butter, and we three people were put on that committee because we viewed the facts differently and wanted to state them in different ways, and it was for that reason that the chairman appointed us three men on the committee. There could be no commission meetings, because three members of the commission were working in the committee outside, writing this report, as instructed by the commission.

It was under those circumstances that Mr. Dennis made this motion:

Moved, that pending submission of a report by the committee appointed to complete the draft of the factual section of the report on butter, the commission resume consideration of the report to be submitted to the President in the cotton hosiery investigation.

Now, it was obvious to every member on the commission that that was impossible, because every member on the commission knew that three of us had just been assigned to complete the factual statement on butter, and that we three would be held in committee meetings morning and afternoon, and that it was so recognized by all mem bers of the commission is evidenced by the fact that upon my motion to submit the cotton hosiery report to a committee consisting of the other three members of the commission, that they might have something to do at the same time that we three men were working on butter, and in order that the cotton hosiery report might be expedited, I made the motion as a substitute for Mr. Dennis's, that a committee, to consist of the chairman and Commissioners Dennis and Baldwin, be appointed to prepare a draft of the factual section of the report on cotton hosiery, and that motion was passed unanimously, Mr. Dennis, Mr. Costigan, Mr. Glassie, Mr. Marvin, and Mr. Baldwin and myself voting for it, which is evidence that all the commissioners recognized the futility of attempting to hold commission meetings to discuss the cotton hosiery report when three commissioners had just been assigned to complete the factual statement in the butter report.

Chairman ROBINSON. In that connection, I do not know just how pertinent it is, but let me point out to you that nearly all Senators frequently have from one to three committee meetings a day while the Senate is in sesion. Of course, everyone realizes that that does not conduce to deliberate work. But I do not think it follows merely because three of you had been assigned to prepare a report in the butter case that all consideration of the cotton-hosiery schedule should be suspended in the meantime. If we only take up in a day here a bill, or give consideration to one bill for an indefinite length of time, we would never accomplish anything. It is undoubtedly true if one can concentrate on a particular subject, and with nothing else to engage him, he can do better and more satisfactory work. That is true of a lawyer also who has many cases on the calendar of the court. Country lawyers sometimes, however, have 25 cases on the docket which may come up on a single day. It would be

better if they had only to think about 1 case, because there is no question but that they could give better attention to 1 case than they could to 25. But I do not think it follows at all that merely because three out of six of the commissioners had been appointed upon a comittee to consider the butter case, that everything else must stand in abeyance, and that they must give their entire time to the butter report and to nothing else. I merely point that out in passing.

Mr. BROSSARD. You understand the reason I gave this information was to show that I contributed in no way to the delay of the cotton-hosiery report; but, on the other hand, the motion was made and accepted by all the commisioners as being the thing which it was thought best to do to expedite the cotton-hosiery report.

Chairman ROBINSON. Why was there so much hurry about getting out the butter report?

Mr. BROSSARD. The butter report had been in process for over two

years.

Chairman ROBINSON. I know the butter report had been in process for over two years, but so also had the cotton hosiery been in process for over two years.

Mr. BROSSARD. That is true.

Chairman ROBINSON. And you laid aside the cotton hosiery and took up the butter case, and you said there was a great hurry. Tell me why that was. I think we all know, subconsciously, but nobody has expressed it.

Mr. BROSSARD. I think there were two reasons.

Chairman ROBINSON. The real reasons, now? [Laughter.]

Mr. BROSSARD. Well, I do not know what you mean by that implication.

Chairman ROBINSON. I mean that there are reasons and reasons. Mr. BROSSARD. Yes; I understand that. I will let you judge, however, after I have stated them, what the reasons are.

Chairman ROBINSON. All right.

Mr. BROSSARD. In the first place, the butter report, as I understand it, had been given precedence some time before.

Chairman ROBINSON. Why was that done!

Mr. BROSSARD. The Senate had passed a resolution requesting that the butter investigation be made.

Chairman ROBINSON. Yes.

Mr. BROSSARD. And the President had asked that such a butter report be made and be expedited, I understood also.

up

Chairman ROBINSON. And the wheat case was a similar instance? Mr. BROSSARD. And the wheat case was a similar instance, but the butter report, when the factual statement was first made-in the spring, as I remember it, in the butter case-the preliminary statement was made in the spring, and then the butter case was held because the commission then adjourned until fall; and as soon as the commission got back to business in the fall it took it up. not immediately, but after one or two other cases, I think; but as soon as they all got together the butter report was taken up in the fall, and it was expedited.

There was another reason, I think, also, which might have had some influence. I think it should not have any influence, Senator,