Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

(The information is as follows:)

Alcoholic beverages: United States imports for consumption, by specified kinds,

[blocks in formation]

1 Preliminary.

Included with "still wines" prior to 1935.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U. S. Department of Commerce.
NOTE.-Includes special free imports and imports free from the Philippines

99616-47-pt. 2-58

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

1 Superseded.

2 Limited to rum "in bottles" from Sept. 3, 1934, to June 3, 1935.

* Reduction resulted from change in general rate pursuant to agreement with Haiti (T. D. 47667; T. D. 47232),

Sept. 3, 1934; Cuba (T. D. 47232).
JJune 3, 1935.3

(Dec. 23, 1939; Cuba (T. D. 50050)..
June 3, 1935; Haiti (T. D. 47667).

Jan. 1, 1939; United Kingdom (T. D. 49753).

Feb. 1, 1936; Netherlands (T. D. 48075).
Jan. 1, 1939: United Kingdom (T. D.
49753).

June 15, 1936; France (T. D. 48316).
Nov. 15, 1941; Argentina (T. D. 50504).
Jan. 30. 1943; Mexico (T. D. 50797).
(June 15, 1936; France (T. D. 48316)
(Nov. 15, 1941; Argentina (T. D. 50504).
Jan. 1, 1939; United Kingdom (T. D. 49753).
Nov. 15, 1941; Argentina (T. D. 50504).
(June 15, 1936; France (T. D. 48316).
(Nov. 15, 1941; Argentina (T. D. 40405).
(June 15, 1936; France (T. D. 48316).
Nov. 15, 1941; Argentina (T. D. 50504).
(June 15, 1936; France (T. D. 48316).
(Nov. 15, 1911; Argentina (T. D. 50504).
Feb. 15, 1935; Sec. 336 (T. D. 47470).
Jan. 30, 1943; Mexico (T. D. 50797).

[graphic]

In effect

Changes in internal-revenue rates on alcoholic beverages, 1930–47

Malt beverages (imported beverage not subject to

Distilled spirits

Date

1930

December 1933..

Jan. 12, 1934.

July 1, 1938.
July 1, 1940.
Oct. 1, 1941.
Nov. 1, 1942.
Apr. 1, 1944.

In effect

1930.

this tax)

[blocks in formation]

Date

[blocks in formation]

Jan. 12, 1934

$0.10

$0.25

$0.12

.10

$0.06

June 26, 1936.

[blocks in formation]

.0214

.05

July 1, 1940.

[blocks in formation]

.06

4.0134

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

.08

0132

[blocks in formation]

.10

.0314

[blocks in formation]

.15

.05

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any more questions?

Mr. DOUGHTON. I would like to congratulate the witness on a most excellent statement.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very happy to know that your appearance ended in good spirits. We thank you for your appearance.

The next witness is Mr. Steven Royer, United Farmers of America,

Inc.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN F. ROYER, STATE DIRECTOR, UNITED FARMERS OF ILLINOIS, UNITED FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC., SANDOVAL, ILL.

Mr. ROYER. I am Steven F. Royer, State director of the United Farmers of Illinois.

I am representing Mr. Arthur H. Booth, who is national president of the United Farmers of America, who is unable to be here, due to his being confronted with conditions beyond his control. He is also chairman of the American Agriculture Committee, representing the aforementioned organization, the Associated Farmers of California, Inc., the Farmers Vigilantes of Nebraska, and 20 other States who have members in the organization, and the Ohio Wheat Marketing Protest Association.

Now, gentlemen, I would appreciate the privilege of submitting a supplemental statement to my statement that I am giving now, after returning home, if it is agreeable to your honorable committee. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The supplemental statement has not been supplied.)

Mr. ROYER. The object of my statement is to request this committee to recommend to the Congress that authority to execute trade agreements be withdrawn from the Chief Executive and restored to Congress, and especially to stop the present negotiation of 18 trade agreements by the State Department.

As I shall show, the proposed trade agreements are intended to force farm-commodity prices down to or below world prices here in our domestic market. In order to prove, therefore, that their enactment is not in the national interest, it is first necessary to establish before this committee the fact that the agricultural income controls the national income, and that the depressed agricultural income resultant from those agreements if they are effected will result in a lowered national income, unemployment, and financial chaos.

I would like to present at a later time for the record a brochure entitled, "It Is Later Than You Think," which defines our American economy to be founded squarely upon American natural resources, American agriculture as our basic industry, and which clearly estab lishes the 1-1-7 ratio of incomes. It proves that, year in and year out, factory pay rolls are approximately equal to the agricultural income and the agricultural dollar turns approximately seven times a year in the channels of trade, so that the national income is generally seven times the agricultural income.

The brochure proves that this ratio of income holds reasonably con stant year in and year out and proves beyond any possibility of ref utation that national prosperity in the United States is dependent upon American prices paid for American produced agricultural prod ucts sold into our domestic markets, and that it is the volume of the agricultural income which determines whether the United States enjoys prosperity or whether it suffers depression. I have marked, for the convenience of the committee, the portion of the brochure which specifically covers this point and proves it to be true.

I would like at this point to have included in the record the brochure entitled, "It Is Later Than You Think."

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The brochure referred to is as follows:)

[Reprint from the Farmers Guide, Huntington, Ind., October 15, 1946]

IT IS LATER THAN YOU THINK!

We farmers can stop worrying about whether or not we are headed for regimentation and dictatorship. We aren't headed for them, they are here. What we have to worry about is how to get rid of them. If we do get rid of them it will be the American, farmer who does the job. If he isn't willing to take off his coat and fight to maintain the sovereignty of his soil; if he isn't willing to fight to keep from being reduced to the status of a peasant worker under bureaucratic overlords; if he isn't willing to fight to preserve the American way which his sons have just returned from fighting to preserve, then the situation is hopeless. We believe the farmer will fight if he is furnished with the weapons he needs.

They are first, truths, and second, a means of stopping regimentation dead in its tracks and then kicking it out. We propose to furnish farmers with both.

TRUTH-WHERE TO FIND IT

Where did we get the truth? We didn't get it from the press or the radio or from the United States Department of Agriculture. We didn't get it from the Red professors of economics or the armchair economists with which many of our universities are infested. We didn't get it from the economists who support the CIO in its demand that farm prices be rolled back on us farmers and that we be forced to accept subsidies instead of honest prices at the market place. There are honest American agricultural statisticians who have studied the problems of agriculture, men like Carl Wilken, of the Raw Materials Council; Dr. John Lee Coulter and Edward E. Kennedy. We got the truth from them. We pass it on to you. We hope you use it.

In this article we propose to prove that agriculture is our basic industry and that until we throw out the present triple A farm program of regimentation and adopt instead an honest agricultural policy we can have neither a prosperous agriculture nor a permanent national prosperity. An honest agricultural policy will correct the chief fault of our American system of free enterprise which requires that when the farmer sells he takes what they give him and when he buys he pays what they ask. He sets no price either as buyer or seller. That is not the American way and an honest agricultural policy will provide a method for farmers to establish their own selling prices. We offer for the consideration of the American farmer such an agricultural policy.

The triple A farm program has worked against the farmer instead of for him. He accepted it because it was misrepresented to him. Leaving out the big words and the confusing formulas, this is what Government said to him: "Let us tell you how much to plant and how many hogs to raise and we will use that power to reduce the 'surplus'; we will bring about a scarcity and make the law of supply and demand work for agriculture. We will get for you the parity prices to which you are entitled." Government did use that power to reduce domestic agricultural production. At the same time, by means of its program of reciprocal trade agreements and the depreciation of foreign currency, it encouraged the importation of competing farm products so that for every acre taken out of production under the triple A, we actually imported the product of more than an acre of foreign agricultural products which being offered at low prices, kept forcing our domestic prices down toward world prices. The "surplus" of course was not reduced and the program never got anywhere near parity prices for farmers.

During the war Government flatly repudiated the triple A program when it stated bluntly that "parity prices for agriculture means uncontrolled inflation." That was a false statement. Parity prices as they are now calculated do not return even reasonable profits to farmers. The truth is that prices for the food and fiber of this Nation which return reasonable profits to farmers cannot truthfully be called inflationary prices. Government no longer speaks to farmers of their right to parity prices. It does speak of a "soil conservation program.”

SOIL CONSERVATION

We of the United Farmers of America, Inc., believe 100 percent in the conservation of our soil. We believe in and we follow good soil-building practices. We, who are farmers, know that it is an inherent instinct of those who work the soil to conserve it. We believe that expert advice should be made available to farmers both in modern conservation practices and erosion control, but we are opposed to any compulsory soil conservation program which is based upon subsidies or benefit payments. Farmers will conserve their soil if they can afford to do so. They can afford to do so only if they receive prices at the market place which will enable them to operate their farms at reasonable profits. The agricultural policy we propose will permit them to do that and it will eliminate the necessity of the present soil conservation program with which Government proposes to continue the control over agriculture which it has already secured by means of the triple A farm program.

Our citizens have been propagandized into the belief that our postwar prosperity can be assured only if we bring about a great expansion of our foreign

« AnteriorContinuar »