Mr. COOPER. I assume that the gentleman refers to Mr. Emery. Mr. TREADWAY. Yes, sir. I am not referring to Mr. Emery except as an example, however.

Mr. COOPER. I think the gentleman will recall the statement that the clerk made here on Saturday, that he had conferred with Mr. Emery and Mr. Emery had stated that it would be entirely satisfactory for him to be allowed to submit a brief.

Mr. TREADWAY. Undoubtedly, knowing Mr. Emery's personal courtesy, I have no doubt he would make that statement, after realizing that he had been practically refused an opportunity to appear in person on Tuesday. But I happen to know from a call that I personally had from Mr. Emery that he was very much upset to find that he could not appear on Tuesday and I have no doubt that he said the next best thing would be "for me to file a brief." That is Mr. Emery's position.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you permit me to interrupt right there? Mr. TREADWAY. Yes; but of course I do not want to delay proceedings.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course not. The Chair is not yet in possession of any information as to whether Mr. Emery is for or against the bill. Mr. TREADWAY. Neither am I.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot be accused of shutting off anyone who is opposed to the bill when we do not know that the gentleman is opposed to the bill.

Mr. TREADWAY. I assume from the fact that his clients are industrialists not professors and theorists or administration men--that he would be opposed to the bill. Mr. Chairman, that is only a supposition. He did not tell me that he was. I have no right to say that.

But, to get back. Let us see what our program is. The House meets at 12 o'clock. I am sure, in view of the fact that we are going to get punched in the eye-this committee is going to be discharged from part of our duties—that every member of this committee wants to be on the floor at 12 o'clock. Is not that true?

Mr. CULLEN. If you keep on talking this way, we will not get to the floor until 4 o'clock this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN. Why cannot you have your man here tomorrow? Mr. TREADWAY. I do not think it is physically possible. I will ask him; but I am asking, if it is not physically possible, whether he cannot be here on Wednesday. He would have to leave Sunapee, N.H., probably by snow sleds-I do not know. I assume there is considerable snow in Sunapee, N.H., where this gentleman is. He must get to Boston and take a train out of Boston to get here. I shall telephone him, if you so desire, at my own expense, to see whether it is physically possible for him to get here tomorrow, and if it is not physically possible for him to get here tomorrow, will you grant him the courtesy of a hearing on Wednesday?

The CHAIRMAN. We will see if that cannot be arranged.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I offer this motion, that if the gentleman is here tomorrow, he be heard by the committee; if not, he be notified he will be given an opportunity to file a brief, which will be printed in the record, the brief to be filed promptly.

Mr. WOODRUFF. Mr. Chairman, may I say a word?

...The CHAIRMAN. Yes..

Mr. WOODRUFF. It seems a ridiculous position that this committee finds itself in in connection with these hearings. It seems ridiculous to me that a motion such as has been offered by my good friend from Tennessee is found necessary by the majority. There is not a man on this committee that does not know that this bill is going to stay before the Senate of the United States for the next 2 months. They are going to discuss it and cuss it endlessly over there. They are not going to ram it down the throats of the opponents of the bill. Those people are going to discuss this bill and consider it until they are satisfied they are ready to submit to a vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield at that point?

: Mr. WOODRUFF. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. Would not that give any other witnesses who desire to appear an opportunity to be heard?

Mr. WOODRUFF. Yes, Mr. Chairman; but I wish to say that I, at least at present in opposition to the bill, desire to have all the information on this subject that I can have, because I have an honest desire to have all the information available. I want information that disagrees with my present views just as much as I want information that conforms with my present views. I try to decide my duties as a legislator on the proper basis. A man cannot do that unless he has all the information that there is to be had.

As Mr. Treadway has pointed out, there is no man better informed in the country, it seems to me, upon the provisions of this bill and the probable results of its enactment, than Mr. Crowther. I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that this committee will do nothing to prevent Mr. Crowther being heard in person by this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOODRUFF. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That being the case, Mr. Crowther is bound to have known before yesterday that these hearings were in progress. Why has he not had time to have had his request made known before today?

Mr. WOODRUFF. Mr. Chairman, I assume Mr. Crowther is both an honest man and a truthful man. I assume Mr. Treadway is likewise an honest man and a truthful man. Mr. Treadway has stated. to the committee that Mr. Crowther did not know that these hearings were going on until within the last day or so.

Mr. VINSON. I did not hear him say that.

Mr. TREADWAY. I do not know positively as to that, let me say, Mr. Woodruff, I got the request from him yesterday.

The CHAIRMAN. If the request came yesterday, he had plenty of time to be here by tomorrow, or perhaps even today.

Mr. TREADWAY. My dear sir, traveling from North Carolina and traveling from New England are two different things these days.

Mr. WOODRUFF. I think every member of the committee will agree that a matter as far reaching as this, as important as this, cannot be discussed extemporaneously in the way men would like to discuss it. Certainly while Mr. Crowther has much information on the subject incorporated in the bill, yet it would seem to me that appearing before the Ways and Means Committee, he would find himself in a position where he would desire to check up on his figures and facts

and present the case to the committee to the best of his ability. That, of course, he cannot do, even with his great ability, extemporaneously.

I will say this, Mr. Chairman. It is my opinion that the crossexamination of Mr. Crowther by this committee would be worth far more than any of us can at the present time imagine.

Mr. FULLER. Is there a motion pending, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Would it be agreeable to the gentleman from Massachusetts if we had this agreement? We do not want to be accused of being unfair. We are making every reasonable effort to be fair. We should like to reach an amicable agreement. Would it be agreeable to the minority if we announce now that we will continue these hearings until Wednesday, but we will certainly close them on Wednesday?

Mr. TREADWAY. During Wednesday?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; all day tomorrow and Wednesday, if there are witnesses to be heard.

Mr. TREADWAY. If Mr. Crowther is here Wednesday, you will hear his testimony before closing?

The CHAIRMAN. We will. But if there are 40 other witnesses still to be brought in here, that would take 2 or 3 weeks.

Mr. TREADWAY. I am speaking only for Mr. Crowther.

The CHAIRMAN. His is the only request that you have?

Mr. TREADWAY. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else have any witnesses for whom he would like to request a hearing at this time?

Mr. KNUTSON. How about Mr. Emery?

Mr. TREADWAY. We will notify Mr. Emery tomorrow.

The CHAIRMAN. We can hear Mr. Emery and Mr. Crowther, if they are here, by Wednesday.

Mr. TREADWAY. Of course, I have no right to speak for Mr. Emery.

The CHAIRMAN. If he comes between now and then, we will hear him.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I assume that your suggestion is not to close the hearings on Wednesday unless both Mr. Emery and Mr. Crowther have finished?

Mr. FULLER. Oh, yes; I think we should close them anyway. The CHAIRMAN. It is our purpose to close them on Wednesday. Mr. WOODRUFF. Will the chairman then agree that the committee will stay in session on Wednesday until these gentlemen have been heard?

The CHAIRMAN. As far as the Chair is concerned, we will stay in session.

Mr. WOODRUFF. How about the other members of the committee? Mr. VINSON. I do not think the gentleman ought to ask such question.

Mr. WOODRUFF. I do not suppose it is necessary.

Mr. VINSON. It should not be necessary.

Mr. WOODRUFF. Upon the assurance of the gentleman from Kentucky that it is an unnecessary question and, of course, the committee will do that, I shall withdraw my remarks.

The CHAIRMAN. I hope it is unnecessary for me to state that this is all in good faith.

Mr. TREADWAY. Of course, we know that our good friends and colleagues, as the majority, have certain prerogatives. But we always realize they want to treat us fairly and they are not quibbling over what time we shall adjourn on Wednesday.

18 Of course, Mr. Chairman, I do not know how important a measure may be before the House on Wednesday and whether or not we shall have to be on the floor at 12 o'clock on that day. We certainly have to be on the floor today. But that should not preclude an afternoon or an evening session. I suppose your idea of closing Wednesday means that we shall close by midnight on Wednesday?

The CHAIRMAN. We shall not split hairs about that, Mr. Treadway. Mr. HILL. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, then I think we ought to hear Mr. Emery tomorrow, if he is to be heard.

Mr. TREADWAY. I know nothing about Mr. Emery.

Mr. HILL. If we are going to close with both of these gentlemen on Wednesday, I suggest that we hear one of them tomorrow.

I think it would be doubtful that we could finish with both of them on Wednesday.

The CHAIRMAN. We shall notify Mr. Emery that he may be heard tomorrow and we will hear Mr. Crowther on Wednesday.

Mr. DICKINSON. Are we expected to be in session while the House is in session?

The CHAIRMAN. We have permission to sit. We have been in session during these hearings while the House has been in session.

Mr. DICKINSON. I know that, but there may be a matter starting today that may last several days, and some of the members of the committee, at least, may want to attend the sessions of the House. The CHAIRMAN. The chairman has announced our agreement and that will be the understanding unless the committee overrules the Chair or changes the agreement.

Mr. FREAR. We are all sensible men, and if it is necessary we can change our agreement.

Mr. COOPER. In view of the agreement reached, I will withdraw my motion and suggest that we proceed.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cooper, withdraws his motion. The clerk will notify Mr. Emery if he desires to be heard we will hear him tomorrow, and we will hear Mr. Crowther on Wednesday. It is the understanding now that there is to be no issue raised that we have not been fair in our manner of holding these hearings.

The only witness we have this morning is the Honorable Francis Sayre, Assistant Secretary, Department of State.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCIS B. SAYRE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. SAYRE. Mr. Chairman and members of the Ways and Means Committee. With the more general aspects of the need for entering upon a program of bargaining agreements and with the general aspects of the national and international situation, the Secretary of State, and the other witnesses who have appeared, have already ably dealt. It is my purpose this morning, just as briefly as I can, to present to you some of the more practical aspects of this bill and also to suggest that this bill does not constitute a drastic departure from

previous enactments in the history of our country under which Congress has delegated to the President powers of a similar nature.

As one who has taught constitutional law in one of the institutions within Mr. Treadway's jurisdiction, I have felt the force of some of the arguments which have been advanced against this bill to the effect that it proposes too broad a discretionary power to be granted by the Congress of the United States to the President. I want to say just a few words at the outset, if I may, about that objection which I heard advanced to the bill.

I have heard it said that this bill would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the President; I have heard it said that this bill would be an unconstitutional delegation of treaty-making power to the President; and thereby would conflict with the provisions of the Constitution relating to those two matters.

2

L

Now, as I have briefly scanned this subject matter through the years of our history, I have been impressed with the fact that this bill goes no further than previous enactments of the Congress; in fact, it is the very kind of thing which has been done from the very outset. You remember, at the beginning of our history, the very first Congress had two questions to face with respect to the commerce of the United States. One of those concerned tariff making, the fixing of rates on imports. The other concerned tonnage duties and the placing of rates upon ships entering American ports.

With respect to that whole matter one of the early acts passed by the Congress was the important act of 1794, a copy of which I have before me. I was interested, upon reading that act, to compare it with the present proposal, so far as concerns the yardstick which we have heard talked about, the yardstick by which Congress limits power delegated to the President.

That act of 1794 was an act not merely whereby the Congress empowered the President of the United States to limit or fix conditions upon the departure of ships from American ports, but to stop them altogether by laying an embargo-to cut off all commerce going out of American ports. The language of the act is interesting.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress ass mbled, etc., That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, authorized and empowered

and here is the yardstick; notice this language—

whenever, in his opinion the public safety shall so require

the act goes on to authorize the President

to lay an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports of the United States, or upon the ships and vessels of the United States or the ships and vessels of any foreign nation, under such regulations as the circumstances of the case may require, and to continue or revoke the same whenever he shall think proper. and so forth, and so on.

At the very outset, in the early days, when the makers of the Constitution were still alive and active in the scene, we have an indication of how far those Constitution makers thought it was proper for Congress to give power to the President with regard to American commerce, and there, with only the yardstick which I have mentioned, they allowed the President, not to regulate rates, but to stop altogether the departure of commerce from American ports, through the laying of this embargo.

I do not want to weary you, but suffice it to say that that act did not stand alone. Through that period, other similar enactments were