Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Mr. RAINEY. But we will be glad to have your suggestions.

Mr. MARVIN. I shall be very glad to do it or to respond in any way I can to any request of the committee.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Marvin, you have no hesitation in saying that you believe in protection as a policy, have you?

Mr. MARVIN. Absolutely not.

Mr. MOORE. You do believe in a tariff for protection as well as for revenue?

Mr. MARVIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOORE. The gentlemen seem to differ with you on that point. You are not ashamed of the fact that you stand for a protective policy?

Mr. MARVIN. I am no more ashamed of that than I am of the American Flag or of the American soldier. I believe it is an American policy.

Mr. MOORE. I want you to restate for the benefit of the gentlemen of the committee who have come in since you started, your statement what it was per capita that the English paid and what it was per capita that the United States paid on the tariff you referred to.

The

Mr. MARVIN. Based on the estimated revenues for the fiscal year ending March, 1918, the British revenues from customs will be about $460,000,000, which will be approximately $10.25 per capita. best estimate I have been able to obtain on the revenues derived from customs in this country for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1918, is $168.000,000, or about $1.60 per capita.

Mr. MOORE. In other words, in England the amount raised per capita from customs duties is $10.25, and in the United States the amount raised per capita is $1.60; and your suggestion is that the committee might find that a fruitful source of inquiry and possibly of profit if it took up the matter of increased customs duties? Mr. MARVIN. I certainly think so; yes, sir.

Mr. HULL. Mr. Marvin, I came in just as you were giving the rate of percentage of revenue to the amount of imports. I believe you gave the rate of the percentage to the value of dutiable imports and also to the value of all imports; is that correct? I came in just as you were on that subject. I am sorry I was not able to get here earlier.

Mr. MARVIN. I asked permission, sir, to incorporate in my remarks a table showing the average ad valorem rate of duties on imports from the year 1912 to the year 1916, and said that the figures showed that for the nine months ending March, 1918, the average ad valorem rate of duty on our imports would be 6.21 per cent. Is that what you referred to?

Mr. HULL. What I was getting at was this: Which is the best criterion to take, the average rate on dutiable imports or the average rate on all imports, dutiable and nondutiable, and what do your rates signify when you do take them?

Mr. MARVIN. I think there is possibly more significance, if we are looking at the question from a protective tariff point of view, in the rate of duty on the dutiable imports, but if we are looking wholly at the question of revenue, it is more important, I think, to see what the average rate of duty is on all imports, because that eliminates the question of dutiable imports and the reason why such imports are dutiable.

Mr. HULL. Then, you would adopt one course in order to determine one proposition and adopt the other in order to determine more accurately the other question?

Mr. MARVIN. It would depend a great deal on which direction I started. If I had my mind definitely made up to go to a certain place, I would take an entirely different course than if I were arriving at another result. It is, perhaps, interesting to note that over 73 per cent of our imports are now absolutely free of duty.

Mr. HULL. Would you base your customs tax program on specific or ad valorem duties at this time?

Mr. MARVIN. Well, I believe that specific duties are more easily collected there is less danger of misrepresentation, and, I think, they are more effective as a means of gaining revenue and also as a means of protection.

Mr. HULL. The prices of all imports, as well as other things, have practically doubled. If you had an ad valorem basis, would you not get a much larger amount of revenue in the customhouse than you would if you had a specific basis, which would apply to the quantity rather than to the value?

Mr. MARVIN. In the case of inflated values I think there is, perhaps, an advantage in the ad valorem rate, but in normal times I think it is a disadvantage.

Mr. HULL. You would feel inclined, during this emergency, under war conditions and during these times of greatly inflated prices, to recommend an ad valorem duty, would you not?

Mr. MARVIN. If careful safeguards as to the value of the imports could be devised, I should think the point is all right.

Mr. HULL. There is no real way of making a comparison between the customs receipts of this country and Great Britain, because there are wholly different subjects of taxation which would be involved, unless we were to provide a coffee, tea, and sugar tax.

Mr. MARVIN. That is true. The situation in England and in this country is entirely different. England is a trading country, while we are a producing country. I think our economic policies should be based on our needs and not on the needs of England.

Mr. HULL. I remember that Secretary of the Treasury Chase, during the Civil War, stated that customs systems were entirely unreliable as sources of revenue during war times, with embargoes on so many kinds of imports as well as exports. What would you say to the view he then expressed?

Mr. MARVIN. I think it was correct. I think when we are in abnormal times

Mr. HULL (interposing). You think they should be considered very unreliable?

Mr. MARVIN, I should think so; yes, sir; as a basis for legislation for normal conditions.

Mr. HULL. I notice in the English Parliament when the tax bills come up although the Parliament is made up of different political parties that during this war situation they unanimously agree, or with practical unanimity, that in view of the fact that the customs taxes are so unreliable it is not wise to enter into any of these questions except as to the simple items of tea, tobacco, and sugar, in the main. Do you think it would be wise for us to take up all of these

[ocr errors]

raw materials, or other items that are coming in, and undertake to forecast the situation, the volume of imports and trade movements, and try to get some kind of a substantial and stable revenue at this time from those sources?

Mr. MARVIN. It would be very difficult, I imagine, to draft a tariff law to-day that would be wholly applicable to the conditions that will confront us after the war.

Mr. HULL. If you drafted one now you would have the same necessity to draft a new one under the newer conditions, would you not? Mr. MARVIN. From my point of view it might become a greater necessity.

Mr. HULL. You were comparing the possible rates under some of the schedules with those under the present schedules. Would you feel justified in taking wool and making it one of the items from which to raise some war taxes? I am speaking of the war period and am not speaking of the situation that will arise when the war closes.

Mr. MARVIN. Personally I should.

Mr. HULL. Taking into consideration the general legislative standpoint and the economic situation as well as the fact that the Government is utilizing and commandeering practically all the wool it can get hold of for the Army?

Mr. MARVIN. It might serve, Mr. Hull, a very useful purpose. We need wool and we have got to have wool. If the difficulties of importing wool were increased, we would raise more wool. If we lost revenue on the basis of free wool as compared to a tax on wool, we would more than make that up in national prosperity by the production of the wool, and instead of sending abroad a part of the money to pay foreign dealers to raise the wool all of that money would remain here, and you would get your money ultimately by income taxes on the producers. You would lose nothing in revenue, the country would prosper, and we would get more wool.

Mr. HULL. In view of the fact that the price of wool has gone up practically four times would you put an ad valorem duty on it for war purposes at this time rather than to put a specific duty on it? Mr. MARVIN. I should think that would be a fairer plan at present. Mr. HULL. You are very familiar with the prices of commodities and everything connected with our economic situation. In order to keep the economic situation on a somewhat even keel under these war conditions, if a substantial tax should be put on wool, do you think it would be wise, feasible, or advisable to have the price of manufactured woolen products fixed-an agreement as to the price of labor and then an agreement as to the distribution of the profits with respect to the manufacturer, the laborer, and the consumer who would purchase those products? Then the consumer would not have to pay inflated prices, the manufacturer would get his due share of the profits, and the skilled laborers would get their proportionate share also.

Mr. MARVIN. Personally I am opposed to a price-fixing program, and I think the objections to a price-fixing program are apt to outweigh the reasons in favor of it.

Mr. HULL. This is just during the war?

Mr. MARVIN. Yes, sir; if we could leave the matter of prices to the adjustment of competition, I think it would be fairer all around, but there are so many details that enter into such a question. You might fix the price, but you might overlook the equal obligation to fix the cost. The price must be based on the cost of production, and it is an unfair proposition, it seems to me, to fix one element of the problem, namely, the price, and to leave the cost of production out of consideration.

Mr. HULL. Somebody would have to fix the price in any event before the product is sold.

Mr. MARVIN. Of course, in normal times the price is fixed by supply and demand as well as the amount of competition, but during war times

Mr. HULL (interposing). I am referring to these war conditions. Mr. MARVIN. It would be a beautiful thing, I think, if there was some great genius who could work out all of these matters with fairness and justice, but it seems to me that experience has shown that it is better to leave those questions to be worked out in experience rather than to be worked out in the seclusion of some man's office. I doubt if human ability is capable of handling the problem of price fixing and the correlative problem of fixing the cost of production and do justice to everyone concerned.

Mr. HULL. I thank you very much. I am not undertaking to express any views myself, but simply trying to get your views.

Mr. GARNER. I want to ask you one question and then I want to express my views. You live in Boston and you are the attorney of the Home Market Club.

Mr. MARVIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GARNER. Have you ever raised sheep?

Mr. MARVIN. My duties have not called upon me to raise sheep or cattle.

Mr. GARNER. I am asking you merely for information now. You are not in the sheep business and have never produced sheep. How do you figure out in your mind, as the attorney for the Home Market Club, or in any other way, that a duty on wool at this time would stimulate the production of wool, when the Government is fixing prices?

Mr. MARVIN. As I said to Mr. Hull, I am not in favor of the policy of the Government fixing prices, because I think it does more damage than good.

Mr. GARNER. I agree with you fully on that. I do not favor the Government fixing the price on anything and I would like to have a lot of revenue through the customhouse, but I can not join you in your reasoning that the putting of a duty on wool would stimulate production in this country, and that we, therefore, would have more wool. The Government is fixing the price now.

66

Mr. MARVIN. Yes. I think if you say to one man, Go to work," and to another man, "Stand over him and club him if he does not go to work," you are not going to get much work done.

Mr. GARNER. Any duty you levy at the customhouse now can not have the effect that you protectionist gentlemen think it usually has. Mr. MARVIN. No, sir; it can not have that stimulating effect on production when there is a fixed price and a limited production. One offsets the other.

Mr. DIXON. Will the statement that you are filing show the average rate of duty on the total importations as well as the average rate on dutiable importations?

Mr. MARVIN. The average rate on the total importations and not the average rate on dutiable importations.

Mr. DIXON. Not on the dutiable importations.

Mr. MARVIN. No, sir.

Mr. DIXON. The statement is limited to just the one.

Mr. MARVIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FORDNEY. Mr. Marvin, the Government has fixed the price on wool at 65 cents a pound.

Mr. MARVIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FORDNEY. Wool is very largely used for manufacturing cloth? Mr. MARVIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FORDNEY. But cotton is used to a greater extent in the manufacture of cloth than wool, is it not?

Mr. MARVIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FORDNEY. Is there any reason why the Government should fix the price on wool and not fix the price on cotton? Is there any inconsistency in fixing the price on the two if you fix it on the one?

Mr. MARVIN. Well, it would seem to be a fair proposition that if they are going into that policy it should bear on all products. I do not myself approve of the policy, so that I am not keen to have it extended. I think it works a hardship instead of a benefit.

Mr. FORDNEY. Mr. Marvin, a question was just asked you about the percentage of the duty on dutiable goods. Did I catch the question correctly?

Mr. MARVIN. I was asked about the table which I incorporated in my remarks.

Mr. FORDNEY. The duty collected under our law is 6 per cent ad valorem, and 73 per cent of all the imports are on the free list? Mr. MARVIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FORDNEY. Great Britain prior to the war-I want you to correct me if I am not correct, because you are an expert on statisticscollected $3.56 per capita on imports, while we collected $3.25? Mr. MARVIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FORDNEY. She collected 31 cents per capita more than we did? Mr. MARVIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FORDNEY. We are now collecting $1.60 and Great Britain. $10.25?

Mr. MARVIN. That is what I understand.

Mr. FORDNEY. Do you not believe we ought to collect some of this money that we are exacting from the people on imports instead of by direct internal revenue taxes?

Mr. MARVIN. I have spent several minutes in arguing that point. I believe that is the policy that should be adopted.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Do you favor a duty on tea and coffee?

Mr. MARVIN. I quoted Senator Underwood in my remarks as saying that we might have to come to a consumption duty on necessities of that kind. In putting a duty on tea and coffee, particularly on coffee, I think consideration would have to be given to what would be the probable action on the part of Brazil, for instance, from which we get a large part of our coffee. If Brazil should immediately

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »