-Mars Apr 29, 1922

NOTE.

Believing the greatest demand for the Tariff Hearings before the Senate Finance Committee on H. R. 7456 will be only for those schedules containing the particular items in which each individual is interested, the preliminary prints have been revised and indexed and printed by schedules.

The hearings are paged consecutively and comprise the following separate documents:

American Valuation.

Dyes Embargo.

Schedule 1.-Chemicals, Oils, and Paints.

Schedule 2.-Earths, Earthenware, and Glassware.
Schedule 3.-Metals and Manufactures of.

Schedule 4.-Wood and Manufactures of.

Schedule 5.-Sugar, Molasses, and Manufactures of.

Schedule 6.-Tobacco and Manufactures of.

Schedule 7.-Agricultural Products and Provisions) combined.

Schedule 8.-Spirits, Wines, and Other Beverages

Schedule 9.-Cotton Manufactures.

Schedule 10.-Flax, Hemp, and Jute, and Manufactures of.

Schedule 11.-Wool and Manufactures of.

Schedule 12.-Silk and Silk Goods.

Schedule 13.-Papers and Books.

Schedule 14.-Sundries.

Schedule 15.-Free List.

Special and Administrative Provisions, and Appendix containing briefs received too late for printing in the volume containing the hearings upon the various schedules.

LEIGHTON C. TAYLOR, Clerk.

III

SPECIAL PROVISIONS.

PREFERENTIAL DUTIES AND FOREIGN TRADE ZONES.

STATEMENT OF HON. WESLEY L. JONES, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON.

Senator JONES of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask that a provision be put into this bill similar to one that has been carried, I think, in every tariff bill for a great many years and which was in the Simmons-Underwood Tariff Act, but for some reason has been omitted from the bill as it passed the House. It is a clause providing for preferential duties, with the express provision, however, that it shall not apply where we have treaties to the contrary. I think that it would be well to have this provision in, because it has been included for a great many years, and we are trying to build up the merchant marine; and while, in a practical way, the provision may not amount to anything, it is a notice to other countries that we have not at any rate abandoned this policy, that we maintain it in our legislation so that if any use can be made of it at any time it will be on hand to avail ourselves of.

I submit a provision that I think is in language similar to the language heretofore used, although the rate may be a little bit different. Otherwise it is exactly the same.

(The provision referred to is as follows:)

That a preferential duty of 10 per cent ad valorem in addition to the duties imposed by law, shall be levied, collected, and paid on all goods, wares, or merchandise, whether such goods, wares, or merchandise are on the so-called dutiable or free list of the United States tariff law, which shall be imported in vessels not of the United States or vessels not built, owned, and manned by citizens of the country of which such goods, wares, or merchandise are the products or manufacture; or which being the production or manufacture of any foreign country not contiguous to the United States, shall come into the United States from such contiguous country; but this preferential duty shall not apply to goods, wares, or merchandise which shall be imported in vessels, not of the United States entitled at the time of such importation by treaty or convention or act of Congress to be entered in the ports of the United States on payment of the same duties as shall then be payable on goods, wares, and merchandise imported in vessels of the United States, nor to such foreign products or manufactures as shall be imported from such contiguous countries in the usual course of strictly retail trade.

A discount of 5 per cent on all duties imposed by this act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in foreign-built vessels admitted to registration under the laws of the United States: Provided, That nothing in this subsection shall be so construed as to abrogate or in any manner impair or affect the provisions of any treaty concluded between the United States and any foreign nation.

I desire, also, to call your attention to an amendment that I have offered and had printed and referred to the committee. It is known

5061

as the foreign trade zone bill. This measure was introduced and referred to the Committee on Commerce. We had quite extended hearings with reference to it. We amended the bill in a good many particulars, and finally the bill as amended was reported from the Commerce Committee unanimously. Democrats and Republicans on the committee were heartily in favor of the proposition.

I am not going to take your time to go into it now. I have no doubt that you will look into it very carefully when you come to consider the actual framing of the bill. It seems to me that it can be worked in mighty well in the administrative features of the bill. It is very proper, I think, in the tariff bill, if you deem it wise to adopt it, and I hope that the committee will give that amendment very careful consideration and give the proposition very careful consideration as to whether or not we should do something along that line and whether or not it should go into this bill.

Senator SMOOT. Has it already passed the Senate?

Senator JONES of Washington. No; it is on the calendar but has not yet been called up. I thought, and the committee thought, that after we had reported it it was a very proper thing to be considered by the Finance Committee as one of the administrative features of the bill. I hope you will consider the report submitted, which has been printed.

I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, and I shall not take any more of your time.

Senator CURTIS. Will you submit a copy of the bill?

Senator JONES of Washington. You will find the amendment in the record. I had it printed and referred to your committee.

ANTIDUMPING.

[Title III, Sections 301-303.]

BRIEF OF MAXIMILIAN TOCH, REPRESENTING TOCH BROS., NEW YORK CITY.

I returned to America on November 24, after having had the opportunity of studying tariff, antidumping, and embargo conditions in England, France, Belgium, and Germany, and I am appearing before you, more or less as an individual, in order to give you such information as I believe the Treasury Department and the Tariff Commission do not possess. I would like to have it plainly understood, however, that I am not criticizing the Customs Division of the Treasury Department nor the Tariff Commission for their lack of information, because from my personal observation neither of these two departments has money enough or men enough to conduct the investigations which I personally made.

England has always been a free-trade country, but since the war she has seen her industries slipping, with every indication of going under. In 1921 she enacted a general tariff bill, called the "Safeguarding of the industries act," in which a duty of 33 per cent has been placed on all industries which needed protection, such as optical glass, optical instruments, scientific glassware, laboratory porcelain, synthetic colors, rare earths, and chemicals. In addition to that, an antidumping law has been enacted, which became a law on October 1, 1921.

I can only quote to you part 2, section B, of the antidumping act of England, which relates to the depreciation in value of foreign currency, which we would do well to follow:

"Evidence as to price at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured in the United Kingdom. Evidence to show that the depreciation in relation to sterling of the currency of the country of manufacture is responsible for the fact that the price at which the goods are sold or offered for sale in the United Kingdom are below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured in the United Kingdom."