the Congress of the United States, has full authority to step in at any time and by law correct the commission, revise its findings and set things on the right track. The Congress has not done that yet in the case of freight and passenger rates.

Senator BINGHAM. But we are doing it in the case of the tariff right now?

Mr. GRAY. You are doing it right now, and periodically it should be done, no doubt.

Senator BINGHAM. We can do it whenever we do not think the President has set the rates right. Wherein do you gain anything by taking out the representative of the people in the person of the President as a check on the commission, when the commission, like all other commissions, proceeds to get arbitrary?

Mr. GRAY. You gain this, Senator, if nothing more: You gain one step more toward flexibility, because you have to go only to the Tariff Commission to get your flexibility, if you prove your case, subject only to a review by Congress; whereas, leaving the President in, you lose weeks and months before the case can be finally determined, ordinarily, and just delay determination of whether a rate should go up or down, as the case may be, until sometimes the emergency or the condition which requires the increasing or lowering of the rate has gone by or has done its harm. You would gain speed; and parenthetically I should say you would also take the political phase out of a fact-finding and research work, which is the attitude that all of us take when we go before the Tariff Commission. We do not go there as politicians; we go there as men who have facts and research for the commission to determine upon, and you would take the political phase out of it very largely.

Senator BINGHAM. But if the people of the United States decide that they want a tariff for revenue only and elect a President that promises to give them that, and he comes into office, and can not do anything with the Tariff Commission, then where are you?

Mr. GRAY. The President, under the Myers case, decided by the Supreme Court a year ago, can do almost anything he wants to in remaking a Federal Board at any time without stating the cause or referring the matter to the Senate.

Senator BINGHAM. Then you are going to give the President power to make these rates anyway, because if the commission does not make them the way he wants them to

Mr. GRAY. He has jurisdiction over every member of the commission.

Senator BINGHAM. Then I do not see that you gain anything by taking away from the President the power to review their decisions. Mr. GRAY. We lodge in the Congress of the United States the supervisory and regulatory power behind and superlative to the power of the agent, the Tariff Commission; so that the Congress, by the Constitution, is the revenue-making body and does not delegate to any agent-the President of the United States, for instance-who ordinarily is considered to be of more importance than the Congress

Senator BINGHAM. But you do not expect us to sit here every summer and revise the commission's decisions, do you?

Mr. GRAY. No. Our purpose, Senator Bingham and members of the committee, our purpose in advocating a truly flexible provision

is that Congress, less often in the future than the past, will need to tinker with the tariff; but it will be done gradually day by day as economic conditions change, either as they require increases or decreases; and Congress, if this provision is made truly flexible, will be less involved in tariff revision in the future than in the past.

Senator BINGHAM. Can you guarantee that this regulatory function that you are leaving to Congress will not have to be performed in the middle of the summer?

Mr. GRAY. No.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we all understand your position on this question.

Senator HARRISON. I am wondering if you have taken into consideration the fact that we have now given the President three secretaries where he formerly had but one.

The CHAIRMAN. That has a great deal to do with the administrative features of the bill.

Mr. GRAY. We do not know what the secretarial departmentalization at the White House will result in eventually, but at the present time, Senator Harrison, I can only surmise that it will not speed up the decisions of cases referred to the White House from the Tariff Commission.

The next thing we have for your consideration, not giving any more attention to the flexible provision, although there are several other details here that could be called to your attention, is the Tariff Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. You may put them in the record.

Mr. GRAY. If I may, in the brief; thank you.

The Tariff Commission. That subject has been covered partially in the colloquy that has just been had by members of the committee. We want a nonpartisan body of seven men drawing $12,000 salary each per year, subject to a term of office of length sufficient that when a man has experience by work incident to his position, the people of the United States can capitalize on that efficiency. In other words, referring to that last proposition, we do not like the provision of the House bill now lying before you which virtually legislates the commission out of a job.

In the Farm Bureau we never have taken a position on any proposition trying to legislate a member of a commission out of his position. We know, as I explained to Senator Bingham a while ago, that the President has complete control over all members of all commissions owing to a decision of the Supreme Court a couple of years ago; and I can not see, in view of that, why it is necessary now to adopt the language of the House bill which virtually requires the President to rebuild the Tariff Commission. We have men on that commission and I am not speaking in a critical or in a commendatory way we have men on that commission whose experience might be presumed to be valuable; and if there is going to be a change let it be gradual, at the termination of office or otherwise at the President's desire; but do not put it into the bill in such a way that he practically has to rebuild it.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Could he not reappoint, under the bill as framed, or continue on any incumbents?

Mr. GRAY. He could retain, if he wanted to, any of the present incumbents.

That is all I have to say about the Tariff Commission. Senator SIMMONS. In what sense do you use the phrase that the President has complete control of these commissions? Of course, he appoints them to office and the Senate confirms the appointment; but how does that give him complete control of them unless the act specially gives him control, which I think probably this act would do, with reference to the commission hereafter to be appointed? As I understand it, he would have the power not only to appoint but to remove at will, practically.

Mr. GRAY. The expression or term "complete control."

Senator SIMMONS. That does not apply to any other commission that I know of. Has he the power to remove arbitrarily a member of the Interstate Commerce Commission or any other commission? I would like you to explain what you mean when you say that the President has control of all of these commissions. That is a very broad term. It means probably their decision as well as their membership.

Mr. GRAY. In using the term "complete control" with reference to the President's power over a member of any commission at Washington, I am referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in what I believe is called the Myers case wherein it was contested relative to the authority of the President to remove a Federal employee whom the Senate had confirmed, without stating the cause; and the Supreme Court determined that the President had the power to remove, without stating the cause, a Federal appointee even though that appointee to get his position had to be confirmed by the Senate. In that way I am using the term "complete control" relative to the fact. that the President, if he is displeased or becomes displeased with the policy of any commissioner on any commission, can remove him and appoint a successor, referring to the Senate, of course, the confirmation of the successor named, but not asking the Senate's consent in removing the old commissioner. That is what I mean by complete control.

Senator SIMMONS. You think that the power to remove carries with it the power to control?

Mr. GRAY. Yes; the power of removal in that way would carry with it the power of control.

Senator SIMMONS. This bill gives him the power to appoint, with the consent of the Senate, and then the power to remove without the consent of the Senate. You think that gives him complete control of the commission?

Mr. GRAY. The bill does not give that; the decision of the Supreme Court gives him that power.

Senator SIMMONS. I am talking about the Tariff Commission. He will have the power to appoint?

Mr. GRAY. Yes.

Senator SIMMONS. And the power to remove?

Mr. GRAY. Yes.

Senator SIMMONS. And that, you think, gives him control of the commission?

Mr. GRAY. It gives him control of the policies of any commission if he wants to exercise that control.

Senator SIMMONS. Is it your conclusion that by virtue of that control he can control the decisions of the board?

Mr. GRAY. Yes and no. He can control the decisions if they become so flagrant in his mind that he needs to rebuild the commission's personnel in order to get the decisions he desires. Just as Congress, in the freight rate proposition that we were speaking of a while ago, or in the tariff rates that we are speaking of now, if it finds that the Interstate Commerce Commission, or the Tariff Commission is flagrantly out of keeping, can control the commission by the. exercise of congressional authority, so the President can control a commission in its decision by the power of removal and reappoint

ment.

Senator SIMMONS. If your theory is correct, that would make those boards merely the agents of the President in carrying out a policy or plan.

Mr. GRAY. I think it so to be at present; and I am not sure but that they should be reflective of the administrative point of view. Senator WALSH. Do you favor the removal of the 50 per cent limitation for the present?

Mr. GRAY. I was going to refer to that, Senator Walsh, and now I shall refer to it at your question. To make this truly flexible, we think the 50 per cent limitation should be eliminated. If it requires a 75 per cent adjustment up or down, make it.

Senator SACKETT. What would you say as to the free list?

Mr. GRAY. Transfer either to or from the free list or the dutiable list.

We want this thing flexible, Senator Sackett, in the truest sense of the word. You can see from my explanation that the membership of the Farm Bureau is pinning much of its future tariff hopes, in addition to what we get here in the revision, on our arguments before the Tariff Commission. If we can not make our case there, we will not get the decision our way, of course.

Senator BINGHAM. There would be quite a rush to get on the commission if they were made up the way you wanted them, would there not?

Mr. GRAY. How do you mean?

Senator BINGHAM. I mean, there would be a good many interests that would be particularly anxious to be represented on the commission.

Mr. GRAY. That has always been so, so far as I know.

Senator BINGHAM. That is one of the troubles with the commission form of government, is it not?

Mr. GRAY. That is a trouble with the commission form of government. I do not know that you can remedy that condition, Senator Bingham, by statutory regulation.

Senator CONNALLY. You do not think that in the contest for those places the Farm Bureau would ever get any of them, do you? Mr. GRAY. It never has asked for one.

Senator CONNALLY. You say, though, that there would be a scramble for those places, and you have your hopes of influencing the commission with your arguments, and so forth. You really do not seriously think that they would put a farmer or a representative of the Farm Bureau on the Tariff Commission, do you?

Mr. GRAY. They might.

Senator CONNALLY. They might-that is true; they might.

Mr. GRAY. If the questions which the committee members want to ask relative to the Tariff Commission and the flexible provisions are finished, the next thing is the general approach to our colonies or dependencies or protectorates.

What I shall say has no relation to Hawaii and Alaska, because they are Territories and in the way of becoming States, are part of the revenue system of our Government, participate in the Federal aid that the Government is giving now for many enterprises, and so are integral parts of our consitutional Government. But when we refer to the Philippines, Porto Rico, and other island possesions we are on a different constitutional ground, so I am informed, which will permit us to levy on the products of these so-called colonies the same rates of duty in tariff matters which are applicable to the rest of the world; and our position is that commodities coming to us from the Philippines-and what I say relative to the Philippines applies to Porto Rico as well-should bear the same rates of duty that prevail in the bill applicable to the world.

Senator BINGHAM. When you use the word "colonies," do you have in mind the attitude of Great Britain toward her colonies in 1775? Mr. GRAY. Somewhat of that historic significance attaches to our use of the word "colonies." Answering your question a little bit more fully, the farmers in the United States for whom I speak partially -others speak for other groups of agriculture-have come to believe that a tariff law adopted at the present time, even though the rates may be high on farm crops, if adopted at the same time that an ear of colonization is initiated or continued, means very little to agriculture.

Senator BINGHAM. Do you consider Porto Rico to be a colony? Mr. GRAY. Yes.

Senator BINGHAM. Where does Porto Rico buy most of her food? Mr. GRAY. She raises most of it herself.

Senator BINGHAM. Where does she buy most of what she imports? Mr. GRAY. From the United States.

Senator BINGHAM. Does that interest the farmers at all?

Mr. GRAY. To a certain extent. She makes a good market for a part of our commodities, of course.

Senator BINGHAM. What is the chief food of the ordinary citizen of Porto Rico in the interior, imported or domestic-raised?

Mr. GRAY. I imagine it would be flour. I am sure I do not know.
Senator BINGHAM. How much flour do they raise in Porto Rico?
Mr. GRAY. Very little-none.

Senator BiNGHAM. None; and that is his chief food, you say?
Mr. GRAY. Yes.

Senator BINGHAM. And it comes from the United States?

Mr. GRAY. Yes; to a certain extent.

Senator BINGHAM. He imports most of his food from the United States?

Mr. GRAY. And he exports almost wholly agricultural commodities to the United States?

Senator BINGHAM. How much Porto Rican coffee do we use in the United States?

Mr. GRAY. We get most of our coffee from Brazil.

Senator BINGHAM. Yes; but that is not the question I asked you Mr. GRAY. I do not know: I can not give that figure.