In addition to this England has protected her dye and synthetic chemical industry by means of embargoes and prohibitions which prevent foreign chemicals from coming into the country.

The condition in France is still more interesting, for France has enacted the tariff known as the law of September, 1921, which is composed of four distinct types of tariff. They are known as the old tariff, new tariff, favored-nation tariff, and the coefficient.

The old tariff is the tariff which existed prior to that date and applies to some raw materials not made in France and others not indigenous to France. The new tariff, generally speaking, is a very high tariff on chemicals and manufactured articles. The favored-nations tariff-from which the United States is conspicuously absent favors those countries which France has chosen and is equivalent to the old tariff. But the most important and interesting part is what is called the coefficient. This is a number, 2, 3, 4, or more, in the fourth column of the tariff act, and which in every instance is used as a multiple of the duty assessed. For example, precipitated barium sulphate is assessed at 2 francs per 100 kilos, but carries the coefficient 5, therefore it is dutiable at 10 francs per 100 kilos. A favored nation would, however, pay 50 centimes per 100 kilos.

France has no unemployed men at present; the entire country looks very prosper

ous.

Belgium is in the same condition and has a high protective tariff, but I am not in possession of the latest laws on the subject.

The condition in Germany is exceedingly interesting, in view of the fact that by far the largest part of the plants in Germany are working nights. There is no unemployment, as there is no foreign competition. As I pointed out to the Treasury Department last summer (in June, 1921), Germany in addition to her high tariffs has a list of embargoes which preclude the importation of any material which can be made in Germany out of German raw material. If we wanted to retaliate by shipping 1,000 tons of barium peroxide to Germany at 5 cents per pound, it could not be done, because the material could not enter any of the customs ports of Germany. Now I desire to call your attention to our antidumping law, enacted in May, 1921, as follows:

SPECIAL DUMPING DUTY, SECTION 202.

"(a) That in the case of all imported merchandise, whether dutiable, or free of duty, of a class or kind as to which the Secretary has made public a finding as provided in section 201, and as to which the appraiser or person acting as appraiser has made no appraisement report to the collector before such finding has been so made public, if the purchase price or the exporters' sales price is less than the foreign market value, (or, in the absence of such value, then the cost of production), there shall be levied, collected, and paid, in addition to the duties imposed thereon by law, a special dumping duty in an amount equal to such difference.

"(b) If it is established to the satisfaction of the appraising officers that the amount of such difference between the purchase price and the foreign market value is wholly or partly due to the fact that the wholesale quantities in which such or similar merchandise is sold or freely offered for sale to all purchasers for exportation to the United States in the ordinary course of trade, are greater than the wholesale quantities in which such or similar merchandise is sold or freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption (or if not so sold or offered for sale for home consumption, then for exportation to countries other than the United States), then due allowance shall be made therefore in determining the foreign market value for the purposes of this section.

"(c) If it is established to the satisfaction of the appraising officers that the amount of such difference between the exporters' sales price and the foreign market value is wholly or partly due to the fact that the wholesale quantities in which such or similar merchandise is sold or freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the United States in the ordinary course of trade, are greater than the wholesale quantities in which such or similar merchandise is sold or freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption (or if not so sold or offered for sale for home consumption, then for exportation to countries other than the United States), then due allowance shall be made therefor in determining the foreign market value for the purpose of this section."

This shows how superficially the manufacturers in the United States are being protected under section 202 just quoted. I speak from personal experience, having had an interview with the chief of the customs division. This law clearly indicates

that, after you have shown that foreigners are selling in this country at ruinous prices, and that an industry is being injured, and is prevented from being reopened, no power or no sanction has been given to this law so that the injury may be remedied. It is, therefore, quite obvious that in the new traiff some officer of the United States must be given authority to act, and act quickly.

I furthermore call your attention to H. R. 7456, which is the tariff act of the Ways and Means Committee, and I want to point out to you that, with the exception of the dye industry, which has already been safeguarded in the emergency tariff, many parts of the bill are superficial, and carelessly drawn. Many of the mistakes which appear in the Underwood tariff, and which the Underwood bill copied from the previous tariff acts, are present in the Fordney bill, H. R. 7456.

As an example, certain chemicals are mentioned on page 5, paragraph 11, then paragraph 12 goes on to shoe polishes; and then on page 21, paragraph 64, the chemicals are taken up again from page 5.

The same contradictions which appear in former tariffs appear in the Fordney bill, as, for instance, on page 22, paragraph 74, zinc oxide ground in oil is dutiable at 2 cents per pound. and on page 21, paragraph 63, enamel paint, which is also zinc oxide ground in oil, is dutiable at 25 per cent. These contradictions lead to litigation, and even though the greater tariff would prevail, it costs the Government a great deal of money to decide these things, which should be unequivocally stated in the tariff act. Finely powdered, washed, witherite is free, but under the name of barium carbonate, which is the same thing, it is dutiable.

Much of our unemployment has been due to the delay in formulation of the tariff. Millions of dollars in duties could have been collected, and the tax burden thereby lightened.

If there be any further information that you want I will be glad to give it to you.

BARGAINING PROVISIONS.

[Title III, Sections 302 and 303.]

STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. BENTLEY, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA PACKING CORPORATION AND THE NATIONAL CANNERS' ASSOCIATION.

sident

Mr. BENTLEY. My name is Charles H. Bentley; I am vice p of the California Packing Corporation and chairman of the foreign trade committee of the National Canners' Association, an organization representing the bulk of the canning industry in the United States, including canned meats, milk, fish, fruits, and vegetables. These products all come in the agricultural schedule.

In our request for a tariff on canned foods we have been concerned not so much in the matter of securing a protective tariff as with the idea of securing a trading basis, in order that we may negotiate reductions in certain foreign countries which at the present time are shipping canned foods to this country, and will continue to do so under the provisions of the pending bill, on a much lower rate of tariff than they charge us on similar products which are going to their countries.

In other words, in our endeavor to develop foreign markets on our products we find ourselves cut off by high import duties, much higher than the duties contemplated in our own country on similar products.

In order to meet this situation two clauses have been put in the special provisions of the tariff bill-302 and 303, and 302 gives administrative freedom within certain limits, giving the President the power to raise the duty against goods coming from a given country which levies a higher rate of duty on similar products as compared with the duties in this country.

To illustrate, we are admitting products from Japan and France in the way of canned foods at a very much lower rate of duty—and will continue to do so under the provisions of the pending bill-than those countries are charging us on like and similar products. The clause as it now reads in the bill as it comes from the Ways and Means Committee has the expression "like or similar products." We are asking to have that modified, for the reason that under the rulings of the Treasury Department that expression will have to be interpreted as meaning identical products. It is obvious that identical products are not likely to move in opposite directions.

So we are asking modifications to be made in the phraseology of that clause to fit in with the interpretations of the Treasury Department built up on the decisions of the Customs Court of Appeals during many years. In other words, instead of leaving the expression like or similar products," we are asking to have that changed to read "products of similar character, purpose, or use.'

Senator MCCUMBER. Now, give us an illustration.

Mr. BENTLEY. In the case of France, for example, she is shipping large quantities of canned sardines and peas; Spain is shipping canned pimentos; Italy is shipping canned olives and olive oil and tuna fish; Canada is shipping various kinds of canned fish and canned vegetables into the border towns; Latin-American countries, Argentina and Brazil, are shipping canned meats into this country under a much lower rate of duty than they charge us on our canned foods. We would like to be in a position to use this opportunity for securing reduced tariffs in those countries on the general line of canned foods.

Senator MCCUMBER. I want to know particularly what you want to set off as against what is similar, or whatever phraseology you use. Senator CURTIS. Give him an illustration.

Mr. BENTLEY. I want to ask, for example, that France reduce her tariff on canned vegetables and canned salmon coming from this country, and also canned milk, to meet the level of tariffs which exist in this country as against French exportations

Senator MCCUMBER (interposing). You desire that France should lower her tariffs on what, for example.

Mr. BENTLEY. Sardines and salmon.

Senator MCCUMBER. Take that for illustration, so you can send canned cherries to that country?

Mr. BENTLEY. Or canned salmon, any kind of canned foods, but particularly canned salmon.

Senator MCCUMBER. That is a pretty broad proposition; that covers the whole line, and if you have nothing of similar

Mr. BENTLEY (interposing). We have the general idea of canned foods, Senator.

Senator WATSON. How can we induce France to enact any other sort of a tariff law?

Mr. BENTLEY. France at the present time is exacting a much higher rate of duty on canned vegetables and canned salmon which go from this country than it is proposed to levy in this country against her canned sardines, vegetables, and fruits shipped to this country, and in this she is discriminating, because she admits canned salmon from British Columbia and Canada and from Siberia, where

Japan is operating, on a very much lower rate of duty than France charges the United States for canned salmon.

And we hope in this way, by indicating that unless she lowers her duty on canned salmon and canned milk and canned vegetables, which we naturally would ship to her, that we will ask our Government to raise the tariff on French canned foods to the level that she is charging against our foods.

Senator CURTIS. What you want, is it not, is a provision authorizing the President, if advised that any country discriminates against our products, to increase the duty upon the products of that country? Mr. BENTLEY. Products of "similar character, purpose, or use." Senator SMOOT. Mr. Bentley, you said that in the House provision the words were "like or similar articles"?

Mr. BENTLEY. Yes, sir.

Senator SMOOT. The words are "such or similar articles"; it is not "like or similar." It says "such or similar articles." You will find it in section 302, page 207, in the bill, beginning on line 14 and ending on line 15.

Mr. BENTLEY. The expression "like or similar products" now under discussion occurs in lines 4 and 5, page 207, section 302. Senator MCCUMBER. Similar articles would not mean that if France charged us a high duty on fish that we could then increase our duties on French olives, for instance.

Mr. BENTLEY. Well, that would be a question, of course.

Senator McCUMBER. That would neither be "such or similar." Mr. BENTLEY. We would hope that it would apply to the general line of canned foods.

Senator MCCUMBER. What you want to do is to make just the broad statement that we can change our tariffs on all of our canned goods to meet the prices on canned goods of all character coming from another country?

Mr. BENTLEY. Yes, sir.

Senator SMOOT. There has never been a ruling by the Treasury Department that the words "such or similar" means "identical. There never has been a ruling of that kind, and why now bring the question up? What must have happened now that you bring this question before the committee?

Mr. BENTLEY. Because, Senator, the matter was taken up with the Treasury Department, and we were informed by the bureau which has this interpretation in hand that the expression "such or similar" would have to be interpreted as "identical."

Senator SMOOT. It has not been interpreted that way in the past, and why should it be now? Those very words have been used before, and they have never been interpreted as you say they now contemplate.

Mr. BENTLEY. We have been so informed by the Treasury Department under the rulings.

Senator SMOOT. Who was it that told you that?

Mr. BENTLEY. I was told that by Mr. Ashworth, to whom we were referred by members of the Ways and Means Committee. He stated that on the decisions of the Court of Customs Appeals they had built up what they called a table of "similitudes" or definitions, I presume they are, and that under the expression "such or similar

products" they would feel compelled to interpret that to mean identical products."

Senator SMOOT. I think that ruling, however, was on the classification of goods rather than interpreted in the words that have been in the law so long. But when did you see Mr. Ashworth?

Mr. BENTLEY. Within the past 10 days. I should say about a week ago.

Senator WATSON. Well, we have his viewpoint, anyhow.

Mr. BENTLEY. Mr. Chairman, might I distribute these? They will show exactly what we have in mind.

(The document is as follows:)

[The words and phrases canceled are the words in the special section 302 of the new tariff bill as it now reads. The words and phrases in italics are the suggested substitutions.]

TITLE III.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS.

SEC. 302. That with a view to securing reciprocal trade and regulating the commerce of the United States with countries, dependencies, colonies, Provinces, or other political subdivisions of government, producing and exporting to the United States any article or merchandise upon which a duty is imposed by the laws thereof and for these purposes, whenever and so often as the President shall be satisfied that the government of any country, dependency, colony. Province, or other political subdivision thereof, imposes duties or other exactions, limitations, or embargoes upon like or similar products of the United States products of the United States similar in character, quality, or use which, in view of the duties imposed thereupon when imported into the United States, he may deem to be higher and reciprocally unequal and unreasonable, he shall have the power, and it shall be his duty, to suspend by proclamation said provisions of the laws of the United States imposing the duties upon such articles or merchandise products of such country, dependency, colony, Province, or other political subdivision of government, when and for such time as he shall deem just and in such cases and during such suspension, upon the importation of any such-or similar article or merchandise such products into the United States whether the same is are imported in the same condition and when exported from the country of exportation or has have been changed in condition by manufacture or otherwise and whether same has been imported directly from the country of production or otherwise, duties shall be levied, collected, and paid upon such article or merchandise or products of such designated country which shall by the President be ascertained and proclaimed to be equal to the duties or other exactions, limitations, or embargoes imposed thereupon when exported from the United States to such country, dependency, colony, Province, or other political subdivision of government.

Senator SMOOT. Mr. Bentley, you brought this to my attention the other day?

Mr. BENTLEY. Yes, sir.

Senator SMOOT. And I looked it up after you were in the office, and I found these identical words have been used, and I believe they have never been construed by the department, and the department advises me they will not be construed, as meaning "identical" goods.

Mr. BENTLEY. Mr. Ashworth's opinion was apparently based upon the decisions of the Customs Court of Appeals, and we concluded that it might be permitted to suggest wording that would be clear and comprehensive.