have already referred. That question has been asked, and to put it this way, there has been a disposition shown by the proponents of this bill against the ratification of any treaties by the Senate, who should know of the nature of these suggested exchanges in advance.

Do you think there is an occasion to divest Congress of its right, representing the people, to know about where this exchange is going to destroy present-day American industry? We have been unable to secure from the representatives and the proponents of this bill such information. Dr. Sayre, it is generally said, wrote the bill for the administration, and he has been on the stand here 2 days. He and others testified it would be too delicate a relationship between foreign countries and ourselves to confide to the representatives of the people, which Congress, I think, still is to a certain degree, any of the opera tions likely to transpire between nations. Do you have any fear of that kind?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I have no fear of that kind, and I think the delicacy arises, as in the case of most secrets, from the fact they do not know.

Mr. TREADWAY. They do not know what they are going to swap? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Absolutely.

Mr. TREADWAY. And they do not know the conditions under which the other nations are willing to help out on the swap? It is not to be assumed in those swaps the foreign nations are going to give us the better end of the trade if they can help it?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Well, we have just seen France and the apples, with which we are all familiar.

Mr. TREADWAY. Yes, that is one of the other illustrations we have had submitted to us by the advocates of the bill.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Yes, and I understand both shiploads of apples were lost.

Mr. KNUTSON. I did not quite understand that last statement. Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I understand both shiploads of apples or cargoes were completely ruined and worthless, and were a dead loss to the shippers.

Mr. KNUTSON. Then you do not consider that illustration used by the proponents as a very apt selection?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Somehow or other I do not think it is necessary to express an opinion on that swap.

Mr. TREADWAY. On the whole, to conclude my inquiries, you do not see any benefit to accrue from the bill, you do not see any practical method of carrying out the bill, and you see no reason for lack of confidence on the part of the administration with Congress. Is that correct?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I may amend that to say I believe the bill could be made a vehicle for enunciating a national policy. Beyond that I see nothing to it except a further disturbance of American industry.

Mr. TREADWAY. What would be the national policy that might be enunciated in the bill?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. The national policy enunciated in the last paragraph to know where we stand, to collect our debts and act on it.

Mr. TREADWAY. The opinions you have expressed are the result of your judgment following long study of economic questions in this

country and the attitude of foreign countries toward this country in those economic relations. In other words, I know of your modesty, but have we not a right to assume from your record and studies that you are appearing here somewhat as an expert on economic subjects? Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I suppose so.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Crowther, the chairman was unfortunately detained and unable to be here at the opening of your testimony, and I am at somewhat of a disadvantage in asking you questions. Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I did not quite hear you.

The CHAIRMAN. I say it was unfortunate I was unable to be here when you presented your statement.

At the outset I would like to say no one regrets more than the chairman anything coming up in the committee that seems to contain a disagreement as to the facts that come before our committee and come before Congress.

My good friend and very able minority leader of this committee deplores the fact as he contends that a precedent is being established, and instead of Congress functioning under the Constitution in the consideration of legislation, that has been taken over by the Executive.

Now, since I have been a representative in Congress for 23 years or more, if my memory is worth anything at all, it has been the custom of every administration, Democratic and Republican, to propose to Congress what are known as "administration measures", to prepare the legislation in the executive department, and the other department, and to bring those measures to the attention of Congress. If that has not been the practice under all administrations since I have been here, then I have been too stupid to understand what the practice has been.

Now, my colleague goes further and states that during this administration and this Congress, that this authority has been taken over almost exclusively by the Executive, and that we have been just rubber stamps, or figureheads here to obey the mandate of the Executive, with no initiative of our own, no purpose or policy of our own; but just sitting here waiting for the President to come down, and what he says we will comply with like obedient servants.

If I recall, the beer bill in the last Congress, which has raised up to the present about $112,000,000 revenue, was written around our table, with both sides of the committee represented. If I recall, the liquor bill was written by our committee. We had the report and recommendation of the interdepartmental committee, for what it was worth, but the bill was written by our committee. The revenue bill which was passed through the House the other day, being one of the most important pieces of legislation to be considered by either branch of the Congress at this session, at least was not an administration measure. It was worked out by a subcommittee, fully considered by the full committee, and written around our own table, without any interference by the administration, except for such help as we requested.

I think such statements as have been made reflect on this committee and on Congress, and I am sure my friend does not intend to do so. I do not think it should be said that we sit here and do nothing ourselves but that we are just dictated to by the executive department of the Government.

As to a few of the things we have heard this morning, your are somewhat acquainted either personally or by reputation at least, with the President of the United States?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Not personally acquainted; no.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, by reputation you certainly know him?
Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of anything in his record either as Governor of the great State of New York or President of the United States that would indicate he is lacking in ability?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I do not think that question is germane here.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think it is.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I do not think you should ask me that.. The CHAIRMAN. Then I will ask you another question. The Chair certainly would not ask the question unless the tenor of your remarks. indicated that, but it may be I am not able to comprehend the intent of your statement.

I think this is a fair question, Is there anything in the record of his administration that would justify an opinion that he is not loyal. to American interests and American industry, and that they would not be his first consideration in the discharge of any of his functions? Is that a fact?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. That is a fair general question, but as I see, it has nothing to do with this bill. If you carry that right through there is no reason for Congress.

What I say is that this bill in its present form cannot accomplish the very worthy purpose of its preamble.

The CHAIRMAN. We understand you clearly on that point.
Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Do I make myself clear?

The CHAIRMAN. We understand you clearly, and know that is what you have said, and I have heard that statement before.

However, you mentioned the fact the President cannot have knowledge of matters that would come up for his consideration and determi-nation if this bill were enacted into a law, and I ask this, would he not have the same opportunity to be informed and be in possession of knowledge to act intelligently to carry out his responsibilities in thismeasure, as he would in matters relating to any of his other public duties, such as matters coming from the Department of Agriculture and other departments? Of course he must rely necessarily on the Secretary of Agriculture and the subordinates of that Department for information and advice, and the same is true for the Department of State; the same is true for the Department of Commerce. He does not handle any of those exclusively himself and as the result of his own investigation, but he is bound to go to the various departments for information, help, and assistance. If he did not he could not discharge his duties at all.

Now, is there any reason for concluding or seriously thinking that he could not handle matters that would be delegated to him under this bill with just the same intelligence, that he can any other matters now pertaining to his public responsibilities?

If he had to pass on all of these matters himself as the result of his own investigation and study, of course he could not conduct any of the responsibilities of his office or perform any of his duties, but I am

asking if he would be any more helpless in this matter than in any other. I think that is a fair question.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. If my presentation of facts is accurate, then the exercise of any judgment under this bill cannot effect the ends that it purports to effect.

The CHAIRMAN. Please repeat that.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I say if my recital of facts is correct, this bill cannot accomplish any of the purposes which it is designed to effect, therefore the exercise of judgment under it could not be beneficial, and might be harmful.

I say that the Congress of the United States should not delegate such a grave matter of domestic policy to the unreviewable judgment of any man, whether he be President or anyone else.

The CHAIRMAN. You think that answers my question?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I do, sir. You are trying to engineer me around.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no; I do not intend that.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Then I beg your pardon.

The CHAIRMAN. No; I am just trying to get a clear understanding of your statement when you said to Mr. Treadway that the President could not pass upon these questions under the duties imposed in this bill, but it would have to be someone else; and I am just asking you if he would be at any greater disadvantage as the result of this legislation than with respect to all of his other responsible duties.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Let me answer that this way. I know what information would be necessary for a profitable decision in this matter, and I do not know what information is necessary for him to get from the other Department, so therefore I cannot make a comparison.

The CHAIRMAN. I will ask you this, do you think the Tariff Commission, which is always at the disposal of the President of the United States so far as information on tariff questions is concerned, and the Secretry of the State who has to do with our foreign relations and knows the vicissitudes of trade and business, is in a better position to know than any man in the country, and the Secretary of Commerce, who has to do with both domestic and foreign commerce, with all of the information at his command and all of the facilities he has for gathering information. Do you think those various Departments of the Government, the Tariff Commission, the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Agriculture, are not in a better position to deal with this matter than any other body? Would you cast into the discard the best experience, the best thought and ability on this subject?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. NO; I have given very exactly my position, I think. I say it is your duty, sirs, to frame a policy, then those various bodies which had the information, and also the Executive, functioning under that policy, subject to a review through you, could give speedy action. You could give the benefit of all discretion, but you could keep them within a policy, which I believe should be adopted.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you consider is our duty?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I should not have used that expression, because I am not trying to tell you what your duty is.

The CHAIRMAN. The question has been frequently raised here by my good friends on the left as to just how we are going to hold our own in negotiating these trade agreements.

The impression seems to be that the President of the United States with the various agencies he can call to his assistance, would just go in and barter away, some say, or as some others says, obliterate American industry.

Now, do you not have confidnece enough, and are we not all justified in having confidence enough in the President of the United States with the agencies at his command, to work out this legislation if this legislation is passed, without injury to the welfare of the American people and American industry?

Everyone who appeared here said they would go about it in a most cautious manner.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. I say until you know the state of our books and have initiated policy under them, it is impossible to know whether a trade is going to be good or bad.

The CHAIRMAN. To go back to your original proposition of this duty of Congress, would you take all of your books, all of the books of every industry before you wrote a tariff?

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. On, no; you have misunderstood me entirely.

The CHAIRMAN. I beg your pardon, I am sorry.

Mr. SAMUEL CROWTHER. Foreign trade consists of two parts, one is the actual physical passage of goods, and on that we have excellent records of every pound of goods going in and out, but this tremendous interchange of money is not recorded, so we never know where we stand.

We did not know at the time of the stock market crash in 1929some knew, but it was not officially made known, and could not be made known that there was an immense foreign interest in this country. For instance, in the discussion of the capacity to pay, we never took into account how much actually we had to pay the foreigners on securities they held here for insurance, for securities, for steamship rates, and we only knew by guess how much our people were spending abroad and how much they were sending abroad.

So until you know that you cannot know whether you are making a good or bad bargain. When I say keep books I say extend the provisions of the tariff act by which the Department of Commerce keeps an exact pad on exports and imports, so that it will include money exports and imports.

Before you can do that you have got to have an inventory of foreign holdings in the United States and American holdings abroad, and then you will know what we owe them and what they owe us, and we will be somewhere.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course we can only travel today in the light of today. But if you go into trading propositions with your fellowman, if you barter and exchange with goods or personal property, you have no way of knowing definitely whether or not you can make a good trade, but you will soon know.

Now, is it not reasonable to suppose that while the President might not know in every transaction that he was certainly making a good trade-would not the President find it out before he went far enough to do any great damage?