Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I have written at considerable length on that, sir.

Mr. McCORMACK. Did you approve of it? I am hopeful that I will be able to read your book, and I assure you that I will, with interest, but I am seeking all the evidence that I can.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. That, of course, brings us back to the facts as to the bank holiday.

Mr. McCORMACK. They are all linked up, one with the other?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. They are all linked up, one with the other.

Mr. McCORMACK. And devaluation. They are all linked up one with the other, in your opinion?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. They are. Going off the gold standard? I developed that a couple of weeks ago in the Post, just what that had meant up to date.

Mr. McCORMACK. Would you mind stating the result?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Þevaluation had given a considerable profit to speculators and holders of German bonds and nothing more.

Mr. McCORMACK. You are opposed to devaluation?
Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I am always opposed to repudiation.
Mr. McCORMACK. You are opposed to devaluation?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I say that the devaluation did not help the American people in any way; that it helped exactly two classes.

Mr. McCORMACK. But you opposed the legislation which brought it about?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Oh, yes, sir.
Mr. McCORMACK. And you opposed going off the gold standard?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. It might have been necessary, in the emergency which was created, to suspend the gold standard. That is something different than deflating:

Mr. McCORMACK. You opposed the action which was taken?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. The action which was taken was necessary, but the circumstances which gave rise to that action I felt were unnecessary.

Mr. MCCORMACK. I know, but that means that you opposed the legislation, that is, the action of the President is going off the gold standard and the legislation which confirmed going off it?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I do not think that position

Mr. McCORMACK. You did not think that the existing conditions at that time warranted such action, did you?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. The existing conditions did, but I felt that those conditions, if they had been taken care of in time, would have been such that we would not have had that emergency.

Mr. McCORMACK. True.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. That is a point which I do not want to go into here.

Mr. McCORMACK. That is, at any time prior to March 4 or subsequent to March 4?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Prior to March 4.

Mr. McCORMACK. So that the action taken, in view of the existing conditions, you felt was reasonably necessary?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCORMACK. I want, for my ownself, to say that I admire and appreciate your frankness. My questions were not for any other purpose than to try to have impressed upon my mind just what your position was.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I do not want you to get me as an unregenerate reactionary. The point is, I have devoted my whole life to, and the only thing I am interested in, is abolishing poverty, and I am opposed to certain things because I feel they will create poverty.

Mr. McCORMACK. I do not think anyone, and certainly I myself would not, would impugn the gentleman's motives. Even though I have some disagreement, I respect the gentleman's thoughts, in the sphere in which we disagree.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. It is very nice for you to say so.

Mr. McClintic. Some of us have sat here for 2 or 3 days without being given a chance to question the witness.

The CHAIRMAN. You will have an opportunity to interrogate the witnesses, but why not address the chair?

Mr. McCLINTIC. I have.
The CHAIRMAN. I regret it very much.

Mr. TREADWAY. I am in no hurry. I have one question in connection with the remarks which the gentleman just made. I am speaking on the Chairman's time.

The CHAIRMAN. You will be glad to yield to my friend?

Mr. McClintic. I would like to develop one or two thoughts, if I may.

The gentleman has certainly given some testimony which is different from anybody else's who has appeared before this committee since I have been here, and I am a good deal like my friend Mr. McCormack, and I appreciate his frankness. One thing can be said: He stays put.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. McClintic. I am very much interested, Mr. Crowther, in certain agricultural commodities which you have named.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLINTIC. I believe you stated to the committee that we have already lost our market for surplus wheat produced in this country.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Yes, sir. When I say “lost” I mean the bulk of it. We might sell a little here and there, but we are not going back to the pre-war days.

Mr. McCLINTIC. Can you ascribe any particular reasons why we do not now sell 25 to 30 percent of the wheat produced in this country, like we used to do years ago? I might add a further thought: Is it because of the high cost of production, or is it because of treaties which are made between nations to receive certain favoritism?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I think there are two phases to that. The sale of wheat primarily depends upon the cost of production. We get the cost of production through virgin soil. We came in with virgin soil. We steadily became less productive. Then Canada, the Argentine and Australia came in. That brings us up to a point of perhaps 5 or 6 years ago, when Germany, Italy, England, and some other countries turned their attention to trying to produce their own food. So that you see there are two phases. We are not, I think, generally speaking, low-cost producers of wheat now.

Mr. McCLINTIC. In other words, you are of the opinion that they have developed new virgin agricultural lands?

a

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Sufficient to take care of their needs?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. It is a natural evolution. It has been happening.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. You do not think that any kind of a trade relationship that might be effected would result in opening up a market for this commodity to the extent that we can sell our surplus?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. In view of the immense quantity that is produced in other places, at low cost, I cannot see and I may be quite wrong-any place that it can be sold.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. In view of the opinion you have stated, what have you to say about the policy of this government in trying to discourage the production of, say, 30 percent of the amount of wheat that we normally produce? Does that meet with your approval?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. It does not. I would prefer to see a fixed price for domestic consumption.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. I do not know but what I have some apprehension along that line, which I will now bring to your attention, that is, with respect to cotton. The value of cotton, as a commodity, possibly exceeds that of any article that we export, or pretty nearly so. At the present time we are selling abroad about one half of that which we produce each year.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. If I remember correctly, you stated that we were gradually losing that market. In your opinion, do you believe that it is only a year or two until we are going to have our export market taken away from us?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I do not think it is a question of a year or two, and I would not like to say the time, but I would much rather see intensive efforts to expand the domestic use of cotton, and some expert opinion, really expert, on a survey as to when it would be likely for this cotton export to pass out.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Are you of the opinion that the possibilities for the development of virgin agricultural land, planted in cotton, are very apparent and before us at the present moment?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I do not quite grasp that question, sir. Mr. MCCLINTIC. Are you of the opinion that at the present time the practice of other nations in planting virgin agricultural land to cotton soon will reach the proportion that they will be able to produce a sufficient amount to take care of their own needs?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Not soon, but eventually.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. For over a week a great deal of testimony which has been brought to this committee and which has not been refuted--is to the effect that 35 or 40 nations now have the power over night to make a rate, put on an embargo, or close the door of their particular country against any commodity. You believe that is true, do you not?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Oh, yes, sir.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Then, if that is true, and we are to try to protect our export market in cotton, what other products have you in mind that the United States could export to meet that situation?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I set it out in the last paragraph of my statement, sir.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Would you kindly say whether or not, if nations of the world are represented at some particular place where they are trading in the various commodities in their country, whether or not we should have somebody there to help us and to take care of that which our own citizens offer for sale or trade, or what would you do? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. That is such a new idea to me that I would like to think it over before answering. You see, I do not think the "game is worth the candle."

Mr. MCCLINTIC. The point I am trying to get at is that here are 120,000,000 people.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. There is a large percentage of them interested in the production of this great commodity called cotton. We will assume that there is a meeting place where the various nations of the world have their representatives to bargain, to make trades back and forth. The policy of isolation would naturally keep us from being represented there. What I was trying to get from you is, do you believe that it would be advantageous for us to have someone there to look after the interests of the various business interests of the country?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. It is purely personal opinion, and I would much rather stay out of that affair.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Of course, the gentleman has a right to do that, but it is in line with many questions and suggestions that have been raised during this hearing.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. I have always noticed that a manufacturing concern that desired to obtain business always send representatives out, and those representatives have sufficient power to name a price, a date of delivery, the terms of trade, and that if others stayed at home and did not participate in that class of business, sooner or later they went into bankruptcy. I was thinking that the same rules which applied to normal business, normal individual business, ought to apply to world business. And I was hoping that the gentleman would express an opinion as to whether or not we should sit idly by and let the business go away from us. That might give the book balance, to which the gentleman refers, which would be sufficient to enable them to trade in our cotton and other commodities.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I think your book balance will determine that. If it shows that we have a surplus exporting power, I think we ought to do exactly what you say.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. You will remember that at one time we appropriated, I think, $100,000,000 to feed the people in Russia. Another time we gave a large sum of money to the Europeans, and then for a number of years we took up the so-called "Far East contributions." Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. In other words, we were a kind of father to all the destitute in the world. Are you of the opinion that that made these nations any more friendly toward us because of that humanitarian treatment?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I think it made us feel better. It did not seem to make them feel any better.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. The point which comes to me is this: It looks as if this Government has tried in every way in its power to extend

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Would you

the different kinds of aid, where necessary, to help humanity, and that being true, it does not seem to me that we should say—

We are going to adopt the policy of isolation and abandon things and we will have nothing more to do with these countries, and we will sever completely the ties which relate to commercial transactions.

Of course, the gentleman has taken the position, ever since I heard him testify—and he has not changed one iota, and I do not oppose it, and it probably would not do any good to lead him out into these various fields of endeavor, but, as the others, I want to congratulate you on being fair, to say the least.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Thank you, sir.
Mr. McCLINTIC. Although I do not agree with his policy.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. How long will you want me here, Mr.
Chairman? Much longer?
The CHAIRMAN. We have three or four gentlemen on one side.

like a recess?
Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. No, I would like to go home.
Mr. COCHRAN. Any particular train?
Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. No, sir.

Mr. TREADWAY. Mr. Chairman, let me ask permission to insert a letter and accompanying statement from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure there will be no objection.

Mr. TREADWAY. I was also going to ask to have inserted an article from the Washington Post purporting to give the full text of the report of the President's Executive Commercial Policy Committee, but I find that this report has not been released by the President and that the text appearing in the press was not authentic. I shall therefore not ask to have the matter inserted. (The letter and article are as follows:)

UNITED STATES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,

Washington, March 14, 1934. Hon. ALLEN T. TREADWAY,

Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Understanding that some question has been raised with respect to the capacity in which Mr. James A. Farrell appeared before your committee on March 9, 1934, I want to place before you the record of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, as follows:

Policies of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States are determined by the business men's organizations in its membership. The determination is either through referendum or by vote of delegates at an annual meeting.

Through both of these processes the chamber is committed to advocacy of principles respecting tariff legislation and foreign commercial relations. It is a function of our board of directors to interpret and apply these principles as particular measures are brought forward, and have obvious public importance.

Meeting in Washington on March 3, 1934, our Board of Directors exercised this function of interpretation of the formal policies of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States by adopting a resolution and by asking the president of the chamber, Mr. Henry I. Harriman, to arrange for a presentation of the chamber's position, as thus interpreted, before the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives if and when hearings were granted upon H.R. 8430.

Immediately upon hearings being announced, Mr. Harriman communicated with Mr. Farrell and asked him to act for the chamber in making the presentation upon behalf of the chamber. Mr. Farrell undertook this representatio.), and accordingly appeared before the Ways and Means Committee on March 9 to present the policies of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States.

Consequently, the language descriptive of Mr. Farrell appearing on page 42 of part two of the hearings on the subject of reciprocal trade agreements is

« AnkstesnisTęsti »