25 to 33 percent more than in Canada. Finally, since the drop in Canadian currency a further advantage has accrued to the producers in Canada. We believe it absolutely important to note here the general inequality between the high Canadian tariff and comparable United States rates. United States patent leather is dutiable at 20 percent in Canada. In addition, however, preferential Empire rates tend to exclude United States patent from the British market and to encourage the use of Canadian leather. The latter enters the United Kingdom free, whereas United States leather must pay 71⁄2 percent. The above facts cannot, we believe, be dismissed as incidental results of trade reciprocity. Patent leather producers of the United States do not ask for preferential treatment. They merely desire that an unjust and unfair situation be corrected in order to protect the domestic industry from extinction. Very truly yours, TANNERS' COUNCIL OF AMERICA, Executive Vice President. MARCH 6, 1940. FINANCE COMMITTEE, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: Since my attitude toward certain tariff questions was brought into the hearings before the Senate Finance Committee on March 1, I desire that the following statement be included as part of the printed record. As a manufacturer of linoleum and felt-base floor covering and therefore a large consumer of linseed oil and other drying oils, neither the Armstrong Cork Co., of which I am president, nor so far as I know anyone else connected with the linoleum industry, opposed the increase in the duty on imported flaxseed and the upward adjustment of the compensatory rate on linseed oil in the 1930 Tariff Act. At that time a modest increase was also made in the duty on inlaid linoleum and we, along with the American flaxseed growers, recognized that there was a definite relationship existing between the duty on this raw material and the duties on the finished goods as Dr. Coulter indicated in his testimony. The tariff rates on flaxseed and linseed oil have not been changed since the 1930 act. There is a serious deficiency in the domestic production of flaxseed (linseed oil) as well as the other drying oils. We produce no perilla oil in this country; we produce no hempseed oil and we produce only a fractional part of our requirements of tung oil. All these oils, as well as two-thirds of our requirements of linseed oil must come from abroad. In 1936 very naturally we opposed the enactment of a tax of 41⁄2 cents per pound on perilla and hempseed oils. A duty on perilla and hempseed oils can be justified only on the theory that they compete with linseed oil. Therefore such duty should be correlated to the effective duty (3.3 cents per pound) on imported linseed oil, the latter being by far the most important of the drying oils. A year ago in connection with legislation to tax the compensation of public officers and employees, certain Senators proposed amendments to the taxes on vegetable oils that would have increased the existing import tax of 41⁄2 cents per pound on perilla and hempseed oil to 5 cents, and in addition would have taxed the floor stocks of these oils at the rate of 5 cents per pound, notwithstanding the fact that an import duty might already have been paid. Our position in opposing such taxes was entirely consistent with our position taken in 1930. It is also to be noted that under the British trade agreement negotiated in 1938 the duties on linoleum and felt-base floor covering were reduced to the lowest level in the history of the American industry. At the same time, as I have pointed out, the trend has been to increase duties on certain of the drying oils of which there is no domestic production. I am in favor of true reciprocity in foreign trade. I also subscribe to the doctrine of a protective tariff for American industry, realizing full well that every square yard of linoleum or felt-base floor covering that is imported into the United States from Great Britain and other European countries, displaces precisely an equivalent amount of American-made linoleum or felt base and to that degree the lower-paid European workman displaces American labor. One can logically believe in protecting American industry and at the same time be opposed to the erection of tariff barriers that virtually embargo the imports of necessary raw materials of which there is little or no domestic production. Respectfully submitted. HWP: ELA H. W. PRENTIS, Jr., President, Armstrong Cork Co. [Telegram] LOS ANGELES, CALIF., March 7, 1940. Hon. PAT HARRISON, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: I respectfully urge your committee to favor amendment of the Reciprocal Trade Act to the end that all trade treaties consummated under the act must be ratified by the United States Senate. To the best of my knowledge there is no livestock association which favors extension of this act in its present form and practically all of such associations have resolved in favor of such amendment. May I also request that this wire be read to your committee and placed in the record. HUBBARD RUSSELL, Past President, American National Live Stock Association. The CHAIRMAN. I wish to call a matter to the attention of the representatives of the Tariff Commission who are present. If possible the committee would like to have furnished it data respecting the mass of figures which were given by Mr. Holman on yesterday; the committee would like to receive the reaction of the Commission to the statistical data; and if it can be furnished to us in time, which I doubt, before this legislation goes to the Senate floor, we would like to have whatever is furnished incorporated in the printed record. Without objection, that procedure will be followed, if it can be furnished in time for printing in the record. If not, I hope that it will be placed in our hands during the course of the debate in the Senate. (If the data referred to above is furnished the committee in time, same will appear in the revised print of these proceedings.) Mr. MICHAEL AHEARN. Mr. Chairman, Miss Sara McPike, President of the St. Catherine Welfare Association of Yonkers, New York, was scheduled to come here today. She could not appear due to a severe illness, and she states not only for the St. Catherine Welfare Association, but also for the Ladies Catholic Benevolent Legion, the International Catholic Alumnae, the St. Francis Guild of Social Justice, the Guild of St. Clair and the Women Investors in America, Inc. I should like to present her statement for the record. The CHAIRMAN. Miss McPike's name was on the calendar of witnesses, I think for yesterday. Without objection, the statement of Miss Sara McPike will be incorporated in the record. (The same is as follows:) STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 407, EXTENDING THE RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENT ACTS FOR A 3-YEAR PERIOD, PRESENTED TO THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE BY MISS SARA MCPIKE, PRESIDENT ST. CATHERINE WELFARE ASSOCIATION, 2 ELINOR PLACE, YONKERS, N. Y., MARCH 6, 1940. To the Chairman and Members of the Senate Finance Committee: GENTLEMEN: I extremely regret that a severe illness prevents me from appearing before you in person. However no matter how severe that illness may be-I cannot allow the representations of various women's organizations-made either directly or through representatives to go unanswered. Other women's organizations from whom you have heard, have set forth they represented and spoke for the woman consumer-alleging she was in favor of extending the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. I might say I am particularly allergic to that word "consumer," especially after all the Dies Committee has uncovered in connection with the use of that word. I can tell you that the American women are unalterably opposed to any extension of this act. I speak not only in behalf of the St. Catherine Welfare Association, of which I have the honor to be president, but also for members of Ladies Catholic Benevolent Legion; International Catholic Alumnae; St. Francis Guild of Social Justice; Guild of St. Clair; and Women Investors in America, Inc. The women whom I represent not only are consumers-but also have invested their savings in the development and expansion of American industry. Investors, I believe you would call them. In addition, the majority of them are jobholders or the wives of jobholders, and, therefore, entirely dependent for their own security upon the earning power and prosperity of American industry and enterprise. The objects of the St. Catherine Welfare Association are to promote knowledge of citizenship among women and a spirit of civic responsibility tending toward the solution of social problems in accordance with American traditions and ideals as well as to oppose socialism, fascism, and communism. The organizations cited above number millions of real American women in this country, all thoroughly informed in the principles of true Americanism and pledged to do all in their power to preserve these principles and ideals for their children and their children's children. They are working women, business women, professional women, and housewives. Many of them, in keeping with the Christian principles upon which this nation was founded and has grown, have invested their life savings in real estate, homes, and in the securities of the companies in which either they or their husbands have been employed. They believe that their work, thrift, self-denial and courage to back new ventures were factors in developing and enriching this country. They feel certain that their general participation in the purchase of homes and industrial securities greatly helped the good employment and high wages of two decades ago. Under the threat of share the wealth and low tariffs, their savings have almost vanished and many members face the future with dour misgivings. They are convinced there just will be no more relief when they are eventually forced to take the pauper's oath, which they have spent all their working lives striving to avoid. Those appearing before you in favor of extending this act have made much of the alleged fact that it has aided our farmers. I use the words "alleged fact" advisedly, since study of Department of Commerce and Treasury reports do not support any such contention. Personal examination of Department of Commerce reports for the 6 calendar years 1934 to 1939 inclusive, indicates that the total imports of farm products for that period were in excess of $12,702,000,000, while our exports of farm products for the same period totaled only $6,292,000,000, a difference of $6,402,000,000 in favor of the imports. That means our farmers have been swindled out of more than six and one-quarter billion dollars. In return, they have been paid-according to Treasury reports, only $4,357,000,000 in farm relief doles for the same period. You will note, gentlemen, the difference between what the American farmer has lost in our own domestic markets-to cheap-labor foreign farm products and what he has received from the Treasury in doles is more than two billion dollars. Is it any wonder that we find today 85 percent of our farms mortgaged and 6 out of every 7 farms drawing Federal relief in one form or another? That six and one-half billion dollar difference between what our farmers have sold the world and the cheap-labor foreign farm products which the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act has allowed to be dumped on our domestic markers, is the answer for the regimentation and economic slavery in which the American farmer finds himself today. In other words, our farmers have liquidated their farms-on time payments, to the United States Government by accepting the yearly dole or subsidy paid them by the present government. I think the right name for it is "hush money", paid to prevent complaints against this policy of giving foreign products preference in our domestic markets over those produced here by our own hard working people. So much for what these trade agreements have done for our farmers. Now what about the working people, who are likewise consumers? I believe telling you what this act has done to my own city of Yonkers, N. Y., will give you a true picture of its effect upon the home and industrial life of average American cities. We are facing right now in Yonkers a brazen attempt on the part of our city council to rush a record high tax rate through. Why? Until a few years ago Yonkers was listed among the prosperous cities of the country. Since the philosophy of "share the wealth" and low tariffs have become governmental policy, the two major industries of our city ceased to be wealthproducing. Calvin Coolidge once said: "The mere threat of distributing wealth, usually leaves little to distribute." Tariff reduction in favor of Cuba caused two sugar refineries to close their doors, throwing 1,500 men out of work. The threat of reduced tariffs on rugs and carpets reduced the Smith Carpet Co., one of the largest carpet companies in the world if not the largest, to one-fourth its former capacity. Many fine buildings have been demolished to save taxes, while others remain silent more than half the year. As these two industries were among the largest taxpayers in the city, the burden has been placed on apartment houses and homes, with the result that the tax rate is confiscatory. Thousands of people have left the city, while thousands of the former employees of the carpet industry and the sugar refineries are on a permanent dole. The tax rate to support welfare is the highest, or among the highest in the United States. In consequence, 80 percent of the homes and small apartment houses are owned by the banks, insurance companies, and the Home Owners' Loan Corporation. As these groups can rent their houses cheaper than an ordinary individual, buying everything in gross, the future of any person who has his name still on the tax roll is a forerunner that it will soon be blazoned on the relief rolls. Add to this so-called slum clearance, bought out of the brawn and sweat of the people who worked for years and denied themselves every luxury and some of the necessities of life in order not to be a charge on the community when they are no longer able to work, and you have some idea how well "share the wealth" and low tariffs helped the city of Yonkers. A house that cost $18,000 10 years ago couldn't be sold for $4,000 today. If the treaties are as beneficial as their promoters claim, why has the United States more unemployed than all the nations of Europe? And that was the case even before the present war started. If any great good has come to other parts of our country, through heavy taxation and low tariffs, the citizens of Yonkers would like to know who has been benefited, for many there believe they have contributed the savings of a lifetime only to further the experiments of Messrs. Roosevelt and Hull. In closing so there can be no misunderstanding-let me say that I am a lifelong Democrat. Many of you gentlemen know me and my past activities both in behalf of woman suffrage and the Democratic Party. Some of you may recall that 25 years ago I carried the Manhattan banner up Pennsylvania Avenue to Capitol Hill in that historic march of American women insisting on their right to the vote. I deeply regret my health does not permit me to appear before you today, carrying the banner of real American women who are fighting to protect their homes and their children from the insidious poison of alien "isms" that today is endeavoring to destroy our beloved Republic. I am old in the councils of women and of my party. I still have the right to raise my voice in a rallying cry against this steady encroachment of un-American ideas through the legislative process. Therefore, I beseech you gentlemen, as Americans representing American womanhood, to rally once more to our cause as you did 25 years ago. End this continued flooding of American markets with products produced by cheap foreign labor. End these un-American reciprocal trade agreements and, by so doing, give the American working man and farmer an honest chance to earn his living in the American way, rather than continue to force him to submit to the slavery of political patronage and governmental dole in order to obtain his loved ones' daily bread. The women of America-investors, job holders, and wives of job holders-all of them buyers and users of American-made goods-ask you to refuse any extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. Make that the turning point in our return to true Americanism and the march to real recovery. The CHAIRMAN. That closes the hearings. The proceedings are being printed as rapidly as possible, and will be available to the members just as soon as possible. The committee will adjourn. (Whereupon, at 11:55 a. m., the hearings are closed, and the committee adjourned subject to call.) |