The CHAIRMAN. This difference between the $4,000,000,000 that we did import and the $1,100,000,000 that we might only have imported suppose that difference had been taken away from the purchasing power of the governments or individuals who bought this large amount of exports. For instance, our exported cotton amounted to 52 percent of our crop; our leaf tobacco totaled 36 percent; lard totaled 25 percent. Our rosin and turpentine totaled 36 percent; copper, 37 percent; gasoline and lubricating oil, 36 percent; typewriters, 41 percent; motorcycles, 50 percent; cash registers, 23 percent; sewing machines, 33 percent; and wheat alone ran 16 to 20 percent at that time. Now, if that purchasing power had been taken away from foreign governments and foreign people, what would have been the effect upon our large export trade? Would they have bought the same amount of cotton and leaf tobacco and lard and all those other commodities from us? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. No; but the unfortunate widows and orphans who bought 7 billion dollars worth of bonds would have purchasing power. The CHAIRMAN. The people who sold their cotton were paid for it. If you take the people who unwisely bought the bonds that is another thing. That is all." Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. That is something that I cannot follow. The CHAIRMAN. You would simply call off all foreign trade. You have denominated yourself as an isolationist-you have qualified as an isolationist. That is in the record and you have so classified yourself. Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I am very happy to stand on it. Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER (interposing). I am very happy to stand on my statement. The CHAIRMAN. I am going to hold you to it. Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. You cannot hold me to it; I am standing on it. You cannot separate me from it, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now, then, you contrasted the social and living conditions in this country with social and living conditions in foreign countries-the Orient and Europe, and as you intimate the difference is due to a high tariff. Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I think you are bringing two things into that question. One is the manufacturing question and the other is a trading question. I would add one more. We have one disadvantage, that we have nothing to gain by such a trade so that therefore we are far apart The CHAIRMAN. That is no answer to my question. The question I asked you was this: We have so demonstrated our trading capacity or superiority as to greatly mark the contrast in living conditions in these various countries that you have described so vividly, then why need we fear to engage in this trade insofar as it deals with the exchange of commodities? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. There is a broader question. I do not think it is a question of acumen. I think it is a matter of bringing our living conditions down to theirs. I cannot speculate on the horsetrading abilities of nations. Anyone can guess good on that. I have not said before you that we will probably get the short end of any deals. If any of these gentlemen have said that, it would seem that they are the ones to answer that question. The CHAIRMAN. Then I will ask you another question. If a protective tariff has done so much for our country, which we will admit that it has had its part in developing the growth of American industrythere is no question about that-but you take England, who for cen-turies, generations-being on a free trade basis-practically a free-trade basis-how do you account for her superior living and social conditions compared with neighboring nations which had high protective tariffs? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I am glad you asked that question. In the first place, England built up her industry by the most drastic protection. It was not until 1840 that free trade came into England with the repeal of the corn law. If you will go back into the origin of the British industry you will find in regard to weaving-you will find, I think, some time in the history of Great Britain it was a penal offense at least that to import a yard of foreign cloth. They brought in Flemish weavers and they trained them and they would not let them out for a long time. For a long time no British workman could leave the island. They built that up to a point with their coal and iron resources until they had an industrial supremacy. Then the question came up: "How were they going to sell all that stuff without importing?" And so they reached the deliberate point of sacrificing agriculture and repealed the corn law I think around 1840 and kept on with their industrialism at the expense of agriculture. The belief that Great Britain has always been a free trade nation is not founded upon historical fact. The CHAIRMAN. No; you go back too far. Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. That is where it started. The CHAIRMAN. You cannot say that the English people are not a sensible, wise people. Why did England abandon that policy and substitute free trade for it? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I told you why. The CHAIRMAN. Did she suffer or benefit by it-by this change? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. The industrialists benefited; the farmers were wiped out. The CHAIRMAN. If that is so, why did not the industrialists benefit in that country? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Because their supremacy lasted a little while. It was beginning to go down in the seventies when Germany came in. It was from that date that England's industrial supremacy declined until today-I have the figures somewhere I believe it is a fraction of a percent above or below ours. The CHAIRMAN. It is true that in the last few years they were driven to it. Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. They had to come to it because the other countries were flooding Great Britain with goods. The CHAIRMAN. Exactly; and England not as a matter of choice or business expediency, but as a matter of defense, in self defense, was forced to do that. That is true. Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. That is because Great Britain did exactly what we did in the post-war period. Mr. McCORMACK. How can a highly industrialized nation get finished products and export them if it has complete isolation-now, complete isolation would certainly be harmful to a section of the country like New England, which is highly industrialized, would it not? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. No. Mr. McCORMACK. Why not? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Because the United States is almost a complete economic unit. Mr. McCORMACK. But New England is a large industrial section and it depends upon its export trade to maintain and sustain its industrial activity. Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I doubt that, sir. Mr. McCORMACK. Well, you and I are entitled to our opinions. Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I live up there. Mr. McCORMACK. And I represent one of the districts from there. Complete isolation would seem to me to have a very serious effect. This isolation would, it seems to me, have a very harmful effect upon the highly industrialized sections of our country. Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Let me repeat. It is quite tiresome but I must put it in. We must define our policy by the state of our books. We cannot adopt such a complete policy of self-containment any more than we can adopt a policy of free trade without knowing the state of our books. None of these policies in tariff affairs at the most can last over 10 or 20 years, as you know, as it is a shifting situation. Mr. McCORMACK. It is more rapid than in normal times. Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Yes. Mr. McCORMACK. And in these days we require the exception to the rule. The exception seems to be the general rule rather than the exception to the ordinary rule under normal conditions. Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. It seems almost that way, yes. Mr. McCORMACK. Now, isolation in the United States in order to be successful would have to be such that our internal conditions would be so regulated so that one section of the country would not be adversely affected by conditions which existed in the other sections. Would not that seem so to you? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. No; it would not. Mr. McCORMACK. If we have isolation in the United States, don't you think we should have legislation affecting everybody in order to have equal competitive conditions in our own country? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. No. Mr. McCORMACK. How would you escape it? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. You see, the conditions are competitive outside of the coal and iron ore and certain things of that nature and conditions of the industry are largely determined by the market. You can continue indefinitely to make small brass articles in Connecticut because it does not cost much to transport them, but your steel industry has got to be shifting throughout the country. Now, we have seen that. Then the increase in the use of electric power has brought about a revolution which you must face, and that has brought about material changes in coal transportation. Mr. McCORMACK. Now, it is cheaper labor and longer hours. You have to have uniformity with reference to those if you achieve isolation, in order to protect Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. There you are getting me into another subject. Mr. McCORMACK. It comes within the picture, however? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I would-and I have said so in the book-advocate a national minimum wage and a national reasonable maximum work hour. Mr. McCORMACK. Which would apply equally throughout the entire country? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Yes, sir. Mr. McCORMACK. Without regard to local conditions, the development of sections of the country, and whether or not they are prepared for it? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Your minimum wage might have to be changed here and there-I do not know-but I would rather put it at a minimum that could be national. It is a question of where you put it. Mr. McCORMACK. Our internal conditions would have to be controlled for the general welfare, predicated upon an equalization of the law of supply and demand to some extent, would they not? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. No, sir; I would say that the natural machinery of regulation, in most cases, will work better than any regulation you set up. Mr. MCCORMACK. Do you think that there would be a sufficient internal demand to meet or to equalize the supply in the domestic market, that we are capable of producing? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. What kind of supply do you mean? Manufacturing? Mr. McCORMACK. Yes, sir. Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. You see, your manufacturing supply, except in some of the heavy industries, is always changing with the demand; it is a fluctuating thing. I do not care if you put up a $10,000,000 factory, it makes no difference. Mr. McCORMACK. If that is so, how do you account for millions of men in the building trade being out of employment at the present time, or about 14 percent, while the demands in other respects are 30 to 50 or 60 percent of the 1929 demands? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I ascribe that to the disturbance of the balance between the various branches of our economy and also to the sudden shock brought about by the quick reduction of prices that disturbed the balances and the ability of the people to trade. When you get into the building trades, probably under the natural consequences, certain sections were over-built. That is apt to happen anywhere. That is just an error of judgment. Mr. McCORMACK. You would have to regulate it, would you not? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. No, sir. Mr. McCORMACK. In an isolated State? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. No, sir. Mr. McCORMACK. I believe in taking care of our domestic market, but it seems rather difficult for me to approve of the idea that we should simply forego any consideration of the world market. I can see a line of demarcation between them, in the development of both, and I ask you if we became isolationists, whether or not that would compel us to bring about economic and social changes which would also force us to take that road, whether we like it or not, toward fascism and socialism? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I cannot see the slightest connection, sir. I happen to be one of those unregenerate souls who, while subscribing theoretically to some of this regulation, believe that the man has not as yet been born who is sufficiently clever to devise it. Mr. McCORMACK. It is the collective experiences of mankind? Mr. McCORMACK. I agree with you. Of course, we are confronted with an emergency, and many things we do are purely emergency matters, and I hope will end with the emergency, but we cannot close our minds to the fact that many times we are compelled to do things which we do not like to do, by reason of circumstances which require immediate action along certain lines to meet the problem, for the general welfare. Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I think you will agree with me that there are emergency actions and emergency actions, and it does not help out to throw crockery out of the window and carry the feather bed downstairs. That is our difficulty. Mr. McCORMACK. Do you agree with the President's action in the bank holiday? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I know pretty much what preceded the bank holiday, and may I ask you to excuse me from answering that question? Mr. MCCORMACK. Yes, sir; I will. Did you agree with the action of Congress and of the President in connection with the N.R.A.? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Absolutely not. Mr. McCORMACK. Did you agree with the effort to take care of the farm problem? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Not in that fashion; no. I felt Mr. McCORMACK. I mean the "effort." I used the word "effort." Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I favored a treatment on a straight price-fixing plan, and I have seen nothing nearly as good as Senator McAdoo's idea, which was proposed a long time ago. Mr. McCORMACK. You think that the N.R.A. is inadvisable and unnecessary? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I think that the N.R.A. could, in certain sections, have made itself effective, but I think it is working against other portions of our economy; it is making for poverty and not for wealth. Mr. McCORMACK. To be frank-this is not for any purpose other than to get your state of mind, because you realize your state of mind is very important in weighing the evidence which you give; is there any of the President's program that you have supported? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I would have supported-and you are speaking of the N.R.A.-I would have supported a straight minimum wage and maximum hour, without the cumbersomeness of the codes.. It is the code portion to which I object. Mr. McCORMACK. That is the centralization of power, is it not? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I beg your pardon? Mr. McCORMACK. That is the centralization of power in Washington? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Yes, sir. Mr. McCORMACK. Which you fear? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I fear it as a regular thing. Mr. McCORMACK. About the gold standard, did you approve of our going off the gold standard? |