that, that I believe the Germans to-day know a great deal more about our business than we know about theirs, and I believe that we should know as much about theirs as they know about ours; and I believe it is possible to do it.

Mr. HILL. Referring to a question by Mr. Gaines about the impossibility of getting foreign information, are you not aware of the fact that the Board of Appraisers to-day compels sworn testimony as to the actual cost of every shipment of articles imported into the United States, and requires, before they are admitted, if they choose to do so, complete information as to the cost, the transportation cost, charges, cost of packing cases, and everything of that kind, and can compel it before they admit those articles into the United States here?

Mr. COBB. Yes.

Mr. HILL. So it does not make any difference whether it is done on this side or on the other side, if they have the power to get that information as a prerequisite to the importation of the article.

Mr. GAINES. What is the penalty?

Mr. HILL. None.

Mr. COBB. They can not bring the goods in.

Mr. GAINES. Suppose Americans do not testify.

Mr. HILL. The penalty is that they can not admit the goods.

Mr. GAINES. They can not admit that particular shipment of goods. I would rather have that penalty hanging over my head than that of contempt if I did not want to answer.

Mr. DALZELL. I would like to supplement that question by asking whether or not in any of these bills there is any power conferred upon the tariff commission as to the ascertainment of the cost and all that sort of thing. That is done already in the Department of Commerce and Labor in its two bureaus, the Bureau of Corporations and the Bureau of Manufactures.

Mr. COBB. I can not say definitely as to that, but admitting in a general way that it is so, what would be the conclusion?

Mr. DALZELL. My opinion would be that there would be no necessity for creating another body to do that which there is a body already in existence with power to do. Did you ever read the powers of the Bureau of Manufactures and the Bureau of Corporations of the Department of Commerce and Labor?

Mr. COBB. In a general way, yes; but to answer that question, or rather to meet the point at issue, I would say that there, again, it would make no practical difference, as far as I can see, whether the present tariff board existed in its present form or whether it existed as three men employed under the Department of Commerce and Labor. There would be absolutely no distinction there, but this brings you to the fundamental difference--the present tariff board is an executive outfit, and not a legislative outfit. That is to say, it is the creation of the executive, it reports to the executive. You may have the power, as you have in any department, to go and ask for what they have, but there is the difference of making it a permanent agency of Congress and making it an adjunct to the legislative branch.

Mr. DALZELL. But the Department of Commerce and Labor is a permanent part of the Government. If the Department of Commerce and Labor has all the powers that you propose to confer upon this tariff commission, why create a tariff commission?

Mr. CoBB. Because the Department of Commerce and Labor is an executive department and comes and goes with every administration and is a part of that administration.

Mr. DALZELL. It does not make any difference whether it comes and goes or not, if it makes reports from an actual examination of the books of corporations.

Mr. GAINES. As a matter of fact, do its experts come and go? Are they not rather permanent?

Mr. DALZELL. I do not know whether they do or not.

Mr. GAINES. The executive head of the department may come and go, but as I understand it those experts are quite as permanent as you propose to make these people.

Mr. DALZELL. But you understand, as a matter of fact, that in the making of the present tariff law the cost of the production of various articles upon which tariff was fixed was ascertained and reported to this committee by the Department of Commerce and Labor from an actual examination of the books of all the domestic manufacturers, and that the cost of production of the domestic articles and of articles abroad of similar character was the work of experts who spent years in Europe getting these figures. Could any tariff commission do more

than that ?

Mr. COBB. I think so.

Mr. DALZELL. In what respect could it do more. It could not get any more accurate information and reports of the production than by an examination of the books of our own manufacturers. It could not get any more accurate reports of the cost of production abroad than was ascertained by these experts whose business it was to ascertain it and who spent months in the ascertainment of it.

Mr. COBB. Well, there is a fundamental difference between a body of men working simply in the executive department and a body of men who are permanently established to act for the legislative branch. That is, there is a difference in their standing and in their position. There is a difference in their standing before the country which is of the greatest importance.

Mr. DALZELL. But they are both to do the same thing, and the only difference in point of fact is that you call them by different

names.

Mr. CoBB. Of course I do not mean to say that they both should do the work, but I simply say, admitting that the work is to be done it is far better for the country and far better for the business situation of the country to have it done by a tariff commission than by three men in the Department of Commerce and Labor. Take the question of political discussion and the questioning of the figures. The Democratic Party will question figures made by a Republican administration, and the Republican Party will question figures made by a Democratic administration.

Mr. CALDERHEAD. They will always do that.

Mr. CoBB. They will always do that, but if you can create a board in which the public has confidence, that will cease.

Mr. FORDNEY. Did you ever know a Democratic Party that had confidence in a Republican board, or vice versa?

Mr. COBB. I have not seen a very general tendency on the part of anyone to make attacks on the Interstate Commerce Commission. I think the people of the United States, as I said this morning, feel

that the Interstate Commerce Commission is a fairly good body of honest men, doing the best they can, and I do not believe it would be at all healthy for any candidate for office to get up in any district. in the United States and make an attack on the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Mr. FORDNEY. My friend, to show you the difference of opinion, or rather, the action of men, on page 63 of the President's message he refers to the lumber industry, and says that the Department of Commerce and Labor have made their report, and he finds that there are no trusts or combinations in the manufacture of lumber. The press dispatches that went out (a copy of which I have in my pocket) 15 minutes after the message was delivered in Congress, say that that President's message states that that report says that they have not investigated that question, and that it is open to further investigation-just the reverse of the President's message. What do you think of men that could do that? Do you think you could change people and their manner of reporting those things? That message states that that report says that after an investigation there is no such thing as a combination or trust in the manufacture of lumber. Let me read you what the press report says-and then you talk about a nonpartisan board. It quotes four lines of the President's message, actually as it is in the President's message, and then it says: "This part does not treat of the question of a trust or combination in the manufacture of lumber, a subject to be dealt with later," when the report itself says that the investigation shows that there is no such thing as a combination or a trust in the manufacture of lumber.

How do you expect to get a nonpartisan board with such people existing as that?

Mr. CoBB. By public sentiment.

Mr. FORDNEY. Yes; public sentiment will last just as long as these ninety millions of people exist.

The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps you might call Mr. Pinchot on that subject.

Mr. FORDNEY. He shifts his position so often that neither my friend Longworth nor I could follow him.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions to be asked of Mr. Cobb?

Mr. FORDNEY. Not by me.

Mr. LONGWORTH. I do not know whether I quite understand your position as to the question of the annual reports of this commission to Congress, as provided in the Lenroot bill. Did I understand you to say that your association, or the people you represent, lay no special stress upon that?

Mr. CoBB. I meant to say that there are very strong arguments in favor of that system. We do not consider it a fundamental question. Mr. LONGWORTH. It says, "shall make annual reports to Congress and such special reports." Oh, I see.

* * *

Mr. COBB. I would like, if I may, to very briefly say a few words about these bills on points that have not been covered, assuming that both bills are before you.

As to the first paragraph of the two bills, the Lenroot bill is more explicit in its defining of the vocations of the members than the Good bill, and I would say that our belief is rather toward the broadest view of that question. That is to say, that there should be no unnecessary

hampering. In the Lenroot bill there is the use of the word "representative" in describing the different kinds of people that may be appointed. I think it is very unwise to provide that they should be "representative" of the farmers or of any particular vocation; but rather (if you are going into it in that way) that they should be not 'representative of," but should be "familiar with." That is following the idea that these men should be "skilled and experienced" in the work that they have to do, and not that they are "representative" of any particular class.

66

Mr. LONGWORTH. That is, that they are not to look after the interests of any particular class.

Mr. COBB. That they are not to go there with the feeling that they are to look after any particular things, but

Mr. LONGWORTH. That they have special knowledge?

Mr. COBB. That they have special knowledge.

Mr. HILL. Do you not think that the danger is, if they have skill and experience in those particular things, that they will come to think that they are representing those particular interests?

Mr. COBB. There is always that danger, and I think there should be pretty broad terms in that respect.

Mr. BOUTELL. Right in that connection, in the Good bill Mr. Good did not explain, although he touched a little on the question, how these two men were to be selected. I confess that it puzzles me. I think I have a little more faith in mankind than the majority of reformers and I would not put in all these restrictions; but it puzzles me to know how these people are to be selected, on page 2. Here are two men described as: "Two members having special knowledge of the producing interests of the United States." On the opposite page it provides that: "No person who is in any manner pecuniarily interested in the production * * of any article be eligible." How can you get two men who have special knowledge of the producing interests who would not have any interest in any production? Mr. COBB. By adopting the suggestion which Mr. Good almost made this morning, that that part on the third page be stricken out. Mr. BOUTELL. You mean on the first page, be stricken out?

* * *

shall

Mr. CоBB. No; I mean strike out the provision that no person who had a pecuniary interest in the production or importation of any article should be a member. He stated that he had no idea of any such broad construction as was talked about, and that he would have no objection to that going out.

Mr. BOUTELL. It is pretty hard to reconcile the two.

Mr. COBB. I think, after what Mr. Good said this morning, the simple way is to strike out the words on the third page.

Mr. BOUTELL. You will have to strike out one or the other.

The CHAIRMAN. Which do you prefer to have stricken out?
Mr. COBB. Which of the two-

As I should con

The CHAIRMAN. Which do you prefer to have stricken out? Mr. COBB. I think the words on the third page. strue those words on the first page, "familiar with the producing interests of the country," that would not be a very narrow restriction, and would give a pretty broad field to choose from.

Mr. HILL. Why not leave it open to the discretion of the President?

The CHAIRMAN. I was going to suggest whether it would not be better to have something of that kind in there, so that there would be no suspicion that the "interests" had control of this board, so that when they render their verdict it could not be turned aside by saying that the "interests" did it.

Mr. COBB. I think it would please a great many people to have some description. I think there are arguments in favor of it, but I will say that personally I do not believe that would be of very important value.

The CHAIRMAN. I have seen the work of years in the formulation and passage of legislation brushed aside and utterly destroyed by some gentleman saying that the "interests" did it. [Laughter.] And sometimes the only man that appeared for the "interests" was the man that said it. [Laughter.]

Mr. DALZELL. Of course the ideal man would be the man who had no pecuniary interest in anything, and no opinion with respect to protection.

Mr. COBB. Yes. I think it would be unwise to have a man who was actively engaged in business; but the fact that a man had property interests in something in the United States

The CHAIRMAN. My idea, Mr. Cobb, is that if we pass this legislation or legislation of this kind we want to put it as far as practicable on a plane where no man can brush their word aside

Mr. COBB. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. By simply getting up and saying that the "interests" did it. My idea is that it should have the confidence of the people.

Mr. Cовв. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. I am willing to abide by that, always. I want to get it in such shape, if we can, that when the work is done, no matter what the result may be, it will meet the criticism of everybody, so far as the preliminary work is concerned. Of course it will not meet the criticism of everybody after the thing is done, but in forming it it will meet all reasonable criticism.

Mr. Cовв. Certainly, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the reason I am making these suggestions, to get rid of the "interests," if we can.

Mr. COBB. As to the term of office, I would say that our opinion is that a 10-year appointment is better than the provision in the Good bill-that is, we approve appointing them for 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 years, and thereafter for 10 years. The reason for that is that it gives a longer tenure, which we believe is desirable, in the first place; and, in the second place, it would, as you will see, bring two appointments in each administration, and the entire board would not change in any

administration.

Now, while of course at first it might be said that they were all appointed by a Republican administration, in the course of a few years the point that it was the creation of a particular administration would adjust itself. We consider it more desirable to have 10-year appointments, one each 2 years, than as it is provided here. In section 4 of the Good bill we find the words "That said commission shall tabulate," and then it goes on in a description. which is covered by what I said about section 6 of the Lenroot bill, which seems to be more clear. I think it means practically the same thing as this, but it is a little more clear. Section 6 of the