be satisfied that the Government of any country, dependency, colony, province, or other political subdivision thereof, imposes duties or other exactions upon like or similar products of the United States, which, in view of the duties imposed thereupon or free entry accorded 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 or according free entry to such articles or merchandise 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 into the United States whether the same is imported in the same condition as when exported from the country of exportation or has been changed in condition by manufacture or otherwise, and whether the same has been imported directly from the country of production or otherwise, duties shall be levied, collected, and paid upon such article or merchandise the product of such designated country, which shall by the President be ascertained and proclaimed to be equal to the duties or other exactions imposed thereunder when exported from the United States to such country, dependency, colony, province, or other political subdivision of government."

It will be noted that this paragraph follows 303 closely. The sole and only difference is that it is set in motion by a different state of trade regulations or laws found to exist in the particular foreign country. For the same reasons that 303 is constitutional and for the same reasons that 303 and reciprocity treaty rates do not violate any favored nation treaties, this provision in these particulars does no violence to either. There are in the current act approximately 17 different automatic similar provisions. For example, paragraph 1543 reads:

"PAR. 1543. Cement: Roman, Portland, and other hydraulic: Provided, That if any country, dependency, province, or other subdivision of government imposes a duty on such cement imported from the United States, an equal duty shall be imposed upon such cement coming into the United States from such country, dependency, province, or other subdivision of government.'

It will readily occur, however, that such an automatically enforced rate under different trade conditions in different countries might not always operate equally upon all nations and might not in any case exactly measure the discriminatory effect upon our commerce by an offending nation.

The suggested provision meets all these objections, leaving the matter in the power of the Executive, first to admeasure the economic effects on the offending laws and then to proclaim the relevant equivalent. The suggested provision has its exact counterpart in the last part of section 3 of the tariff act of 1897, the Dingley Act. That provision reads:

"And it is further provided that with a view to secure reciprocal trade with countries producing the following articles, whenever and so often as the President shall be satisfied that the government of any country, or colony of such government, producing and exporting directly or indirectly to the United States coffee, tea, and tonquin, tonqua, or tonka beans, and vanilla beans, or any of such articles, imposes duties or other exactions upon the agricultural, manufactured, or other products of the United States, which, in view of the introduction of such coffee, tea, and tonquin, tonqua, or tonka beans, and vanilla beans, into the United States, as in this act hereinbefore provided for, he may deem to be reciprocally unequal and unreasonable, he shall have the power and it shall be his duty to suspend, by proclamation to that effect, the provisions of this Act relating to the free introduction of such coffee, tea, and tonquin, tonqua, or tonka beans, and vanilla beans, of the products of such country or colony, for such time as he shall deem just; and in such case and during such suspension duties shall be levied, collected, and paid upon coffee, tea, and tonquin, tonqua, or tonka beans, and vanilla beans, the products or exports, direct or indirect, from such designated country, as follows:

"On coffee, three cents per pound.

"On tea, 10 cents per pound.

"On tonquin, tonqua, or tonka beans, 50 cents per pound; vanilla beans, $2 per pound; vanilla beans commercially known as cuts, $1 per pound."

The sole and only difference is that the former was confined to a few enumerated and "any of such" articles with prescribed alternative articles and rates. Since the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in the flexible tariff there is no longer question in that proper delegation of rate-making may be vested in the President. That very thing in exactly parallel section 303 of the current act has for years been enacted and reenacted by Congress and

exercised as to many foreign countries. Wherefore, assuredly not only is the suggested provision constitutional but does not violate the favored-nation clauses of our treaties.

Section 3 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, vested a power in the President to take from the free list certain articles and place them upon the dutiable list, as against any nation imposing duties upon certain American articles which he deemed "reciprocally unequal and unreasonable." The provision was exercised by the President and assailed as an unconstitutional delegation of power. The Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Field v. Clark (143 U. S.) held this paragraph constitutional. It is significant that no claim was made that that paragraph,which was exactly what is here suggested and provided by the 17 different provisions in the current act, was in violation of the favored-nation treaties.

Section 3 of the tariff act of 1897 empowered the President to negotiate reciprocity treaties. Thereunder many such giving special favors to special nations were negotiated. They were assailed in the courts as in violation of the so-called favored nation clauses in the treaties with several nations. It was uniformly held that, inasmuch as the statute upon its face treated all nations alike and prima facia offered similar treatment to all nations that alike treated with the United States, it was not a_violation_of_the favored nation clauses. That was held by the United States Court of Customs Appeals in Shaw v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls.) and in Bertram v. Robertson (122 U. S.) and Whitney v. Robertson (124 U. S.). It is equally significant that no nation has ever made protest that such provisions, being based upon a consideration and by their terms applicable to all such nations as put themselves within the statutory provision, all such being treated alike by the statutory provision, did not violate the favored nations clauses.

If we are to equip our Chief Executive with any retaliatory powers whatever to resist by preparedness or action present foreign threats this paragraph will so equip him. There is less likelihood of war if we are armed.

MARKING AND LABELING

[Par. 304]

STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. MCMAHON, NEW YORK CITY, REPRESENTING THE UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA

(The witness was duly sworn by the chairman of the committee.) Mr. MCMAHON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I do not intend to take up much of your time. I am appearing here as president of the United Textile Workers of America, the only national textile organization in the United States affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.

It is our desire, speaking as I do for the workers engaged in the textile industry in particular reference to section 304, page 329, on marking, stamping, and branding, that the law of 1922 be applied more favorably to us. Through some misunderstanding before the Ways and Means Committee, it came out shorn of one very important part of the 1922 bill, which reads:

That every article imported into the United States, which is capable of being marked, stamped, branded, or labeled, without injury, at the time of its manufacture or production, shall be marked, stamped, branded, or labeled, in legible English words, in a conspicuous place that shall not be covered or obscured by any subsequent attachments or arrangements, so as to indicate the country of origin.

The workers of three of the largest employers in the woven-cottonlabel division of the textile industry are and have been in agreement through the international union on working conditions and wages for the past 14 or 15 years; and they are desirous that I should appear

before your committee and speak for them, and ask you to endeavor to place back in the 1929 bill the thought just expressed by myself that was contained in the 1922 bill.

The American labor movement is in full accord with its international unions when those international unions speak for themselves; and, without repeating, I fully indorse what has been said by Mr. Woll, who appeared a few moments ago before this committee. I will submit a short brief on the section.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the present law relative to marking satisfactory to you?

Mr. MCMAHON. It is satisfactory.

The CHAIRMAN. And to your organization?

Mr. MCMAHON. Yes, sir. That is all I have to say.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

(Mr. McMahon submitted the following brief:)

BRIEF OF THOMAS F. MCMAHON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: As president of the United Textile Workers of America, I appear before your honorable committee for the purpose of presenting to you this brief in behalf of the workers of our organization engaged in the manufacture of cotton woven labels.

These workers unanimously agree with that part of the tariff act of 1922 under the caption: Title III, Special Provision, page 87, section 304 (a), reading “That every article imported into the United States, which is capable of being marked, stamped, branded, or labeled without injury, at the time of its manufacture or production, shall be marked, stamped, branded, or labeled, in legible English words, in a conspicious place that shall not be covered or obsecured by any subsequent attachments or arrangements, so as to indicate the country of origin. Said marking, stamping, branding, or labeling shall be as nearly indelible and permanent as the nature of the article will permit."

In the 1929 tariff act the omitting of the following words: "in a conspicuous place that shall not be covered or obscured by any subsequent attachments or arrangements so as to indicate the country of origin," will, in our opinion, be very hurtful and detrimental to the interests and well-being of the workers engaged in the woven cotton label division of our textile industry.

We say with a great deal of pride that for the past 15 years we have had working agreements signed and sealed between the manufacturers of cotton woven label goods in the larger shops and the workers, through their international union. Hours of labor, working conditions, and wages are fair. We believe that if a loop hole is left open in the 1929 tariff act, such as we believe would exist if the above words are not placed in the 1929 act, our workers will be the sufferers.

Unemployment greater than now exists will take place, for the simple reason that importers will have opportunity to say to American consumers that places of origin of imported cotton woven labels can be turned in and sewed on garments or on whatever article they may be used upon.

We believe that your honorable committee is more interested in the welfare of American workers, and will give preference to their wishes, particularly when these wishes mean the continuation of American standards of living among the operatives engaged in the production of cotton woven labels. The wages of American workers in the cotton woven label division of our industry are well over twice as much as are the wages paid to the workers in European countries. I am appearing before you, gentlemen, as the paid, elected representative of the organized textile workers of the United States, and acting under instructions of our general executive council; and am appearing before you to do what I can to protect the rights of these workers, and to make possible the continuation of the humane and harmonious conditions at present existing in the organized shops of the cotton woven label trade between employers and employees.

The executive officers of the United Textile Workers of America in their best judgment think that the elimination of the words quoted in this brief, will give

opportunity to importers and foreign manufacturers to dump on American shores the cheap products of Europe, and thus deprive our workers of employment.

The United Textile Workers of America is the only national textile organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. We therefore not only speak for the organized textile workers, but we believe we speak the sentiment of the vast majority of textile workers, organized and unorganized alike.

We therefore request your honorable committee to insert into the 1929 tariff act the words with which I opened this brief.

Respectfully submitted.

THOMAS F. MCMAHON,

International President United Textile Workers of America.

STATEMENT OF E. J. READING, NEW YORK CITY, REPRESENTING THE COTTON WOVEN LABEL MANUFACTURERS' DIVISION OF THE SILK ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

(The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.)

The CHAIRMAN. Are you going to speak upon the same subject? Mr. READING. I will speak on the same subject, Mr. Chairman; that is, cotton woven labels.

Senator KING. Whom do you represent?

Mr. READING. I represent those manufacturers members of the Silk Association who produce woven labels. I speak only on the subject of cotton labels. Mr. Cheney covers the entire silk schedule, including silk labels.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cheney is not here.

Senator BINGHAM. He has already appeared before the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. READING. I am speaking merely on cotton labels. This marking law is a matter of vital importance to us. The rate of duty given us under the 1922 act was somewhat better than it is now proposed to give us under the new act

The CHAIRMAN. I thought you were going to speak to the administrative features.

Mr. READING. I am merely explaining why this is so vital to us, that the rate of duty, Mr. Chairman, is not sufficient and we have to depend upon this marking law.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want the marking law of 1922?

Mr. READING. We would like the 1922 law, section 304 and section 516, which enables it to be enforced, to be rewritten word for word. The CHAIRMAN. You and Mr. McMahon are in accord?

Mr. READING. Positively.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a brief, sir?

Mr. READING. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would file your brief.

Mr. READING. I will.

(The brief referred to by the witness will be found at the end of his statement.)

If I may, I would like to answer a question of Senator Couzens. Senator Couzens asked me a question when I appeared before on the subject of corks and I was unable to answer; but I think this (submitting a sample to Senator Couzens) answers your question, Senator. I have a letter here that is not incorporated in my brief. It was received too late. It is from the Ethelle Manufacturing Co. (Inc.), and I shall not read my letter to them but will be glad to file both

letters. It is addressed to the Silk Association of America (Inc.), 468 Fourth Avenue, New York City, attention of Mr. E. J. Reading

Senator THOMAS. Where is the letter from?

Mr. READING. 1178 Broadway, New York City, addressed to the Silk Association, attention of E. J. Reading. It reads as follows:

This is in answer to your letter of July 10. You are right in your statement that we have been established 10 or 12 years as label importers and that we manufacture some cotton labels in this country.

Frankly, we prefer the low rate of duty on imported labels.

On account of the several courtesies that your organization has extended us, we will answer the questions that you ask.

We have found the marking law has hindered the sale of our foreign labels to some extent.

We, as well as other importers, are bringing in most of our labels in packages by parcel post below $100 in value, which is not included in the Government statistics.

We trust that our opinion as expressed above fully answers your letter.

The CHAIRMAN. What was your statement with reference to parcel post?

Mr. READING. You see, Senator, all packages less than $100 in value are not included in the statistics, and you can bring in anywhere from fifty to a hundred thousand cotton labels at a value of a little less than $100.

If I may I will file these letters.

(The letters referred to have been filed with the committee.)

Senator SACKETT. If you have this marking law you do not need very much duty to protect your industry, do you?

Mr. READING. But, Senator, we have asked to be transferred, as you know, from the cotton schedule, 50 per cent, to the sundry schedule, 90 per cent. If you give us both, under the 90 it will be gross, not net, because it is proposed to impose a duty of 37 per cent on the yarn. Under the 1922 schedule it is 30 per cent on the yarn. If you give us both 90 per cent and the marking law it will not make any difference.

Senator SACKETT. Which would you rather have?

Mr. READING. I do not know. We are asking for both.
Senator SACKETT. Suppose we give you the marking law?
Mr. READING. That will be very helpful.

But allow me to make just one more point, if I may, Mr. Chairman. We are not trying to get a prohibitive duty on these cotton labels. To do that you would have to give us at least 150 per cent, and if you did do that the European exporters of labels, no longer being able to export their labels, would export some of their looms to this country. We are not asking for a prohibitive rate of duty.

Just one more point. If we may we would like to suggest that the foreign valuation as a basis of fixing duties is not as satisfactory as some other form of valuation might be, particularly from the Government standpoint of collecting duties.

(Mr. Reading submitted the following brief:)