tariff bills, I was not satisfied with the findings of the Tariff Commission.

Senator VANDENBERG. I hope you do not ask me those questions. The CHAIRMAN. I know what a candidate for the Presidency would say, of course. [Laughter.]

Senator CLARK. That was in the old days, Senator, that you are talking about, the Tariff Commission?

Senator King. It is just the same.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you say with respect to this statement, because I have respect for your judgment and your fairness?

Mr. TABER. I thank you very much, but I want to know where you get your statements.

The CHAIRMAN. From the Tariff Commission. Prepared by them for the years 1935 to 1938.

Senator KING. When were they prepared? For this hearing?
The CHAIRMAN. January, 1940..

Mr. TABER. 1935 to 1938 are not fair figures. 1934 to 1935 are the only fair figures you can use, because in 1935 we had some reciprocal trade agreements functioning. 1939 is the last year.

Senator CLARK. Isn't 1935 to 1939 the test figure period?

Mr. TABER. No; it is not, my distinguished Senator.

Senator CLARK. You did not have any trade agreements functioning in 1934, did you?

Mr. TABER. We had two or three in effect, and we had several beginning to function in 1935.

Senator CLARK. For a test period of the Trade Agreements Act, 1935 is the first one you can use.

Mr. TABER. That would be a funny test period after the horse has reached the first quarter. Nineteen hundred and thirty-four is the last year in which there were no tariff treaties operating.

Senator CLARK. I understand that.

Mr. TABER. In 1935, we had some operating.

Senator CLARK. That is the reason we start in with 1935.

Mr. TABER. That is the reason we do not. The horse race has started.

The CHAIRMAN. I have just put in the record a comparison of the periods under which these trade agreements operated, and for the period they have been in operation as to exports and imports for those countries, and those countries which have not trade agreements. That is a matter which is in the record, so that people who read it may see it.

Mr. TABER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree with the statement that the United States exports of cotton with trade-agreement countries experienced a smaller relative decline than did the exports of cotton with nontrade agreement countries?

Mr. TABER. That statement has very little bearing on the fact that we are supposed to have agricultural surpluses, and cotton is one of them. I would like to put in the record what has happened to cotton acreage and production for all of these years which shows a constant decline under the reciprocal treaties. Every year we have had the reciprocal trade treaties, the total amount exported has declined.

The CHAIRMAN. Is your organization very strong in the cottongrowing regions?

Mr. TABER. We have many Grange members in the South, I am proud to say, Senator. And let me pause to say that there is not one matter upon which the Grange is more concerned than the restoring of the export market to cotton, and I want to chide my friends on this side just a little and say that when the Marketing Act was pending, I received more support on this side of the committee than I did over here for our export debenture program that would have moved a lot of cotton at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. May I say that the organizations which are largely interested in cotton have endorsed this program and asked for its continuance.

Mr. TABER. I am aware that many of them have, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you. Does anyone want to ask any further questions?

Senator HERRING. I want to ask you, Mr. Taber, approximately the number of members of the Grange?

Mr. TABER. Approximately 800,000 dues-paying members. We are organized in 36 States with State organizations. We are organized in 6 States without State organizations. We have 8,000 local units. Senator HERRING. Does that include members of the family? Mr. TABER. It just includes the dues-paying members.

Senator HERRING. Are they all farmers or connected with agriculture?

Mr. TABER. Our association's constitution requires that they must be interested in agriculture and have no pursuit in conflict with the program of the Grange.

Senator HERRING. You don't happen to know how many you have in my State of Iowa, do you?

Mr. TABER. About 5,000.

Senator HERRING. The American Farm Bureau have about 1,500,000 in the United States in 39 States.

Mr. TABER. Mr. O'Neal's testimony was in the record the day before yesterday in which he stated their membership, so I will not state it.

Senator HERRING. He said he represented 1,500,000 farmers and members of their families belonging to the organization.

as

Mr. TABER. That is right. He gave the dues-paying membership

Senator HERRING (interposing). Four hundred thousand.

Mr. TABER. They have a family membership and we have an individual membership. If you join, we count one member, and if you join with your wife, that is two members. We have many memberships that are just heads of the family, of course.

Senator CAPPER. Mr. Taber, I am glad that you are interested in the problems of the cotton producer. Out in my country we are greatly concerned about the wheat raiser. What is your What is your observation now as to the effect of this reciprocal trade program for the wheat growers? Has it been of any help to them?

Mr. TABER. We have not seen any help. All the figures we can get together, Senator, indicate that it was the subsidy, or as we call it-call it whatever you please which was utilized in moving wheat. It did more to move wheat and more to move cotton-I want to get this in the record that the subsidy moved more cotton in 3 months

than the trade treaties moved entirely since they were started, and much cheaper.

These tables compiled from the Department of Agriculture statistics indicate clearly the declining loss of world market for cotton. They also prove that recent reciprocal treaties are not correcting the serious situation.

Senator CLARK. Well, it is a fact, is it not, that the income of the farmers of the United States taken as a whole from wheat exclusive of Government benefits have increased materially? Isn't that true? Mr. TABER. This year; yes.

Senator CLARK. Since 1932, we will say, when wheat sold down to 23 cents a bushel on the farm out in western Kansas under the beneficent Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act with the tariff at 42 cents a bushel on wheat.

Mr. TABER. There is something more important than that, Senator, and that is this, that the ratio of prices received by farmers to prices paid has been only about 75 percent as high during the past 2 years as it was during the base period, 1909-14. The present figure is 83. Senator CLARK. What was it in 1932? That was when the SmootHawley Tariff Act was in full flower.

Senator JOHNSON. The Senator from Missouri certainly does not attribute the low price of wheat in 1932 to the Smoot-Hawley Act? Senator CLARK. I certainly do.

Senator JOHNSON. Was the Senator in the Senate at that time? Senator CLARK. I was not. If I had been, I would not have voted for the Smoot-Hawley Act.

Senator JOHNSON. I just wonder what the Senator has ever done to get rid of the Smoot-Hawley Act.

Senator CLARK. I voted for the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, which is the only way we could go about and correct that very vicious situation created by the Smoot-Hawley Act and the preceding tariff

act.

Senator JOHNSON. This is your reason for your support of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act?

Senator CLARK. There is no question on earth about that. Anybody who favored the rates of the Smoot-Hawley Act is entirely correct in voting against the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act.

Mr. TABER. You miss a very great point there, Senator

Senator KING (interposing). There were a great many who were opposed to the Smoot-Hawley Act and yet also were opposed to the reciprocal trade agreements program.

Mr. TABER. That is what I want to get to. Mr. Brenckman, our Washington representative, appeared before this very committee against many of the excessive industrial rates written into the Hawley-Smoot bill. I want that to go into the record. That does not make us turn our backs on our own people now.

Senator CLARK. You are consistent, I will say that.

Mr. TABER. That has nothing to do with the problem of unfair treatment, and a program that does injure agriculture. I noticed in your asking some questions about automobiles, and I want to tell you that I addressed the Detroit Economic Club not so long ago— Senator CLARK (interposing). So did I.

Mr. TABER (continuing). And I sure faced a bunch of great fellows and I said to them that the financial boundary line of Detroit extended to every farmyard gate in America, and that Detroit was more interested in what farmers could get in America than in Cuba. It takes 111 tons of Cuban sugar to get a new automobile. It just takes 11 tons out in Colorado.

Senator CLARK. We had that brought up here the other day, too. Of course, you arrive at that figure by assuming that all of the revenue. produced in the portion of Colorado which produces sugar goes into automobiles, and then to arrive at a figure in sugar, you take the total importation from Cuba of sugar and divide that into the number of automobiles sold in Cuba, don't you? It seems to me it would be an entirely untenable theory. I do not wish to take the time of the committee to go into that, because Senator Johnson and I had that out the other day.

Mr. TABER. It seems to me it is a very sound argument.

Senator CLARK. I do not think so. That is a matter of opinion. Mr. TABER. We are talking about the American market for the American farmer, and we only produce 30 percent of our sugar. I put a statement in the record of the House hearings showing where we lost this $133,000,000, according to the figures of the Tariff Commission, and I also put in the record the price of sugar per pound per month during the entire period, and while the Treasury was losing $133,000,000 in revenue, the poor housewife did not save a nickel because sugar was higher than when the tariff was reduced. The figures are found on page 1649 of the House record.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Taber.

STATEMENT OF ALFRED C. GAUNT, PRESIDENT, MERRIMAC MILLS, METHUEN, MASS.; CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL OF INDEPENDENT SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. GAUNT. To the members of the Senate Finance Committee: My appearance is in behalf of myself and my company, a small worsted mill, which with others large and small is being badly hurt by the working of the so-called reciprocity treaties.

As chairman, however, of the National Advisory Council of Independent Small Business, and vice president of Smaller Business of America, I am particularly and vitally interested in an angle that I think has not been presented to you the ill effect that a renewal of these treaties will have on the country's small businesses and their employees.

It is for the preservation and promotion of small businesses and their employees that I must plead.

It would seem as if the woolen industry had been especially singled out for sacrifice, although it is an industry predominantly composed of small units, most of them proprietor operated. As a matter of fact, 94 percent of the country's 400 woolen testile plants are small and medium sized businesses. They are widely spread geographically from Maine to California, and are usually the substantial means of livelihood in the communities where they are located. They have had so hard a struggle now for many years that almost one-third of those in existence a decade ago have failed or gone out of business. And the further shock of a renewal of these low tariff treaties will put out of business many more.

Strangely enough it is, generally speaking, the small business industries that are hardest hit by these treaties-potteries, which are also the backbone of many small communities; paper mills, glove manufacturers; the lace industry; shoes and hat manufacturers; toys; kitchen utensils; buttons, shoes, and so forth. These are all highly competitive industries with no taint of monopolistic practices. Few of them are "absentee" owned.

The industries that the friends of the treaty allege will be helped fall in large measure into the category of big and concentrated industries, many of them indulging in practices which border on monopoly business machines, electrical appliances, automobiles, typewriters, oil products, and so forth.

So you have here at stake more than a matter of industry versus industry-you must decide which type of business you wish to penalize and which type you wish to promote. A restoration of some measure of parity to small business as opposed to big business may be achieved by refusing to sacrifice those industries which within our borders are highly competitive and the essence of free enterprise for the sake of benefiting giant corporations which need no protection.

It has been argued regarding this measure that it will:

1. Promote the general welfare.

2. Promote world peace.

We can all agree, I feel sure, that one of the best measures or yardsticks of the contribution to the general welfare of this or any measure would be its effect on unemployment-our No. 1 problem.

A break-down of figures on exports and imports clearly shows that on balance this so-called reciprocity robs us of man-hours of employ