Department of Commerce and what part of those records were with the Department of Labor. What other departments, if any, got those N. R. A. records?

Mr. VINCENT. The National Recovery Administration files have been transferred to the Department of Commerce.

Mr. KELLER. Entirely so.

Mr. VINCENT. No; the files that were in the consumers' advisory division possibly were transferred to the Department of Labor when Dr. Hamilton's work was transferred there, but, excepting that possibility, and I am not sure of that, all the remaining files are in the Department of Commerce.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. You cannot tell us whether any of those records were transferred to the Army War College?

Mr. VINCENT. So far as I know they have not been.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. In your testimony you have covered the whole situation very thoroughly, the National Recovery Administration and everything else. I should now like to ask your opinion in regard to paragraph E of section 3 of the National Recovery Act, which deals with the question of restriction of importations, giving the President power to put into effect Executive orders or tariff restrictions. Do you not think it is necessary to have the application of some such regulations as are provided in paragraph E, section 3, of the National Recovery Act in connection with regulation of hours, wages, and other conditions of industry generally?

Mr. VINCENT. Yes; in my opinion. We have developed in recent years trade barriers, and this Government, of course, has a share in that responsibility. These trade barriers in many instances are adverse to our interest. Unquestionably there ought to be some degree of Executive discretion to effect prompt action wherever we find an adverse effect.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. In order to prevent the absolute defeat of the purposes, as provided in the National Recovery Act, something must be done to protect industry here, something by way of Executive

orders or tariff restrictions.

Mr. VINCENT. There should be an adjustable and flexible mechanism.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Tariff adjustments in other countries are much more flexible than they are here. Some other countries simply issue an order in council and practically overnight there is a restriction or an embargo placed upon the imported commodity that is menacing the home industries.

Mr. VINCENT. That is true.

The recent agreement with Canada has provoked much comment both in favor of and critical of the arrangement. It is interesting to note in a survey of past trade flow between Canada and the United States that the increase of employment, the rise of wages, the increased flow of goods, corresponds with the exchange by imports and exports with Canada. In other words, we gained nothing by the restrictions that we previously imposed and if the history of the flow of exports and imports between the two countries is to be taken as indicative of what may be expected, we may continue to expect that as the trade increases between the two countries employment will increase and wage income will increase and profits will increase. Always we find some item

that is not affected in the same identical way that most commodities are affected. There will be an exception to the general rule, but, of course, such trade agreements have to take into consideration the national economy and not the economy of one particular section of the country or one industry. I think that step was one of the wisest that this Government has recently taken.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Referring to imports in competition with the basic commodities like agriculture, which are made below the cost of production, naturally that means the destruction of such an industry. It means that a plant is going out of productivity and those commodities are going to be produced foreign.

Mr. VINCENT. In considering that subject, Congressman, I think that we must always keep in mind that we have in this country many millions of families who are not possessed of anything but a small income and many of them have no income. They are a vast potential market for a wider and more adequate supply of foodstuffs, wearing apparel, household supplies, and we have large groups of people who work but are getting such an inadequate income that they are not the market they should be either for farm or factory products.

Important as our foreign-trade relations are, I think we have potential domestic markets to develop that are almost incalculable. I think our main industries should be directed toward a development of those markets by increasing the income of those classes of people who make the market. Of course the principal groups are the farmers and the industrial workers in the productive industries and the distributive industries.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I am sure we all appreciate the statement made by Mr. Vincent. He has covered a wide field and made a very valuable contribution to the committee in its consideration of the pending legislation.

Mr. WELCH. I regret, Mr. Vincent, that it was impossible for me to hear all of your testimony; but I shall take pleasure in reading it in the printed record.

Mr. VINCENT. Mr. Chairman, you will understand that what I have said has been anything but a complete coverage of the subject, and I should not be presumptuous enough to think that I am authority enough to do that. I do feel, though, that the observations I have made are adequately supported by authentic data available. I am very sure that in the report which we have prepared you will find much in addition to what I have said that will be very informative to members of the committee.

Mr. KELLER. We thank you very much, Mr. Vincent.

STATEMENT OF SYDNEY P. MUNROE Continued

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Munroe, assistant to the president of the Cotton Textile Institute, Inc., New York City, has been kept here 3 days for the purpose of cross-examination. It now develops that there is to be no cross-examination and he has asked for a few minutes to amplify his previous statement. I have told him that he would have that opportunity, and, with the permission of the committee, he will now be given 10 minutes.

Mr. MUNROE. Mr. Chairman, I was hurried very much in the completion of my remarks last Monday, and I was asked by Mr.

Ellenbogen to remain over for cross-examination. At that time I did not get a chance to thank gentlemen of the committee for courtesies extended to me and I want to do that at this time.

Having waited here for 3 days, as your chairman has suggested, I should like to add a few more comments.

On Monday I presented the average hourly earnings of all operators in the cotton textile industries as set forth by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In that connection I failed to point out to members of the committee that the average for the last month reported by the bureau, so far as I know, which was November 1935, was 37 cents, and that is 2.5 percent above the average hourly earnings for the first month under the code, and it is higher than any of the last 5 months of 1933 when the code was in effect and presumably being enforced by the Government.

Also, I should like, with your permission, to draw attention to the losses which the cotton-textile industry has incurred, as shown by income-tax returns for all cotton mills. These figures were provided by the Treasury Department. In the year 1926 there was a deficit for the entire industry of $31,000,000; in 1927 the industry made a profit, according to these [indicating figures of $76,000,000; in 1928 the industry made a profit of but $10,000,000; in 1929 the entire industry earned only $22,000,000; in 1930 the industry lost $91,000,000 in 1931 the industry lost $63,000,000; in 1932 the industry lost $53,000,000.

Further, I should like to draw attention to the effect of those losses upon the spindlage of the industry. In 1922 there were 36,700,000 spindles in place in the industry, according to the Bureau of the Census The peak was reached in 1925, when there were 37,900,000 spindles in place. The latest figures we have for 1935 show 30,900,000 spindles, and I have since seen figures, which I have not with me, which are only slightly above 29,000,000.

I can say that the Bureau of the Census reports that of that number there are only approximately 23,000,000 in active operation, or were in active operation during the latter part of that year.

With reference to unemployment, I should like to point out one factor. It seems evident that there is a general impression in many quarters that manufacturing industries should be looked to to remove all or the greater part of the unemployment in this country, and if they do not do that something will happen.

I should like to point out something in connection with employment as shown by these [indicating] figures, which were provided by the Department of Commerce. In 1919 there were employed wage earners in all manufacturing industries in this country 9,000,000 persons; in 1921 there were employed 6,900,000; in 1923 there were 8,800,000; in 1925 there were employed 8,400,000. I am talking in round figures. In 1927 there were 8,300,000 employed; in 1929 there were 8,800,000 employed; in 1931 there were 6,500,000 employed.

A publication by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that in November 1935, all manufacturing industries in the country employed 7,100,000 persons.

I think that is an important question for this committee to consider, namely, how manufacturing industries can be expected to take up all or any large part of the 10,000,000 persons who, as I am told by members of the committee, are now unemployed.

I have just one more point that I should like to refer to. There seems to have gone abroad an impression-I see it in the public press and it may be prevalent among members of this committee that Monday, in reply to Mr. Ellenbogens' question, I restricted the word "dictatorial" with reference to all features of this proposed bill. That, gentlemen, is not correct. Mr. Ellenbogen challenges me on the question of whether I would denominate the action of Congress in passing a bill of this kind as dictatorial. I said I would change the word to "oppressive" so far as this bill was concerned.

I was asked whether I thought that the duties delegated to the commission under this bill are emphatically dictatorial. As for the bill itself I will characterize it as not only oppressive-and I am talking about the whole bill-but tyrannical, to some extent confiscatory, in some respects subversive of law observance and setting an unsound example by this Government to its citizens, and absurd in the severity of its penalties to the point of reflecting adolescent thinking.

I should like to make one reference to Mr. Vincent's testimony. Mr. Vincent-I did not hear all his testimony-but such of it as I heard seemed, in a large part, to be very sound. I do not believe one theory which he advanced, and I feel that a majority of the mill executives would not agree with it. He referred to the theory that it would be sound for the Government to take action which would tend to eliminate all but the most efficient properties.

Mr. KELLER. I did not understand Mr. Vincent to take any such view.

Mr. MUNROE. Perhaps I misunderstood him.

Mr. KELLER. I understood him to say that we should bring about conditions that would compel the industry to come up to a proper standard. He did not advocate putting them out of existence, but he advocated making them come up to a proper standard of efficiency.

Mr. MUNROE. I agree with that; but if there is an idea that none but the most efficient should survive, I should like to point out that such is contrary to every precept of civilization. Civilization is organized on the theory that the strong must make some sacrifice to protect the weak. That is the trend of all our laws, as is shown by the appropriations for the benfit of the unemployed.

STATEMENT OF HOWARD E. COFFIN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SOUTHEASTERN COTTONS, INCORPORATED, NEW YORK CITY

Mr. KELLER. We have with us this morning Mr. Howard E. Coffin, who made the Hudson car famous and who made Woodrow Wilson famous by his wartime policies. We will hear Mr. Coffin at this time.

Mr. COFFIN. As you know, I grew up in the motorcar industry. About 3 years ago I became interested in the textile industry because of my residence in the South; and later I became chairman of the Board of Southeastern Cottons Incorporated, which is the New York office of the largest corporation of mills in the country, and I suppose in the world for that matter. I do not think there is any larger corporation of its kind abroad.

I have learned a great deal about this industry from my background in the aeronautical and motor industries. A year ago last May I decided to have a motion picture made of the mill activities and the

village life, and the general surroundings of certain of our mills, relating particularly to the Avendale Mill, which, as I understand, has been mentioned here as not living up to code regulations. I have not seen the testimony adduced here, but I understand that is true.

That motion picture is neither advertising nor propaganda. It is a story of what can be duplicated at any time within a week at Avendale. By the time the motion-picture outfit get there and set up, everything you see on the screen will be ready for them to photograph.

I believe that many of you gentlemen who, like myself, are from the northern States and have no idea of cotton-mill operations or the lives of people, or the character of people, I will go that far

Mr. SCHNEIDER. What do you mean by "the time the motionpicture get there and set up, everything you see on the screen will be ready for them to photograph"?

Mr. COFFIN. If we were to duplicate this picture it would take 2 or 3 days to get an operator down there and a day or two to construct a platform, and things of that sort, but it is not an unusual situation. It is a record of the activities that go on throughout the year there. Mr. SCHNEIDER. Does it portray the activity; the actual conditions in those mill towns, or do you dress them up like on Sunday?

Mr. COFFIN. It is a picture of Avendale and it depicts the social life of that mill village as it goes on week after week. I think we have a reproduction of a group of average houses in that village.

Mr. HARTLEY. Have you a picture of the mills and the working conditions there?

Mr. COFFIN. Yes; of the interior part of the mill activities and the social life also.

Mr. KELLER. Does the picture show the actual making of goods? Mr. COFFIN. Yes; in the various stages. Many thousands of feet of film were taken. The particular reels I have here with me are as much devoted to the social life of the community as they are to work in the mills, in fact more so, because that was the thing of more interest to us at the time, although we do have any amount of reels of actual machine operation.

Mr. KELLER. I want to see the wheels go round; I want to see how you do these things down there. I have been thinking that would be a matter of special interest to northerners.

Mr. COFFIN. In addition to these reels, if you gentlemen want a couple thousand feet taken in the mills, showing actual operations, we have that. You can get more in a half hour looking at these films than you would get in many hours of verbal statements.

Alabama is generally understood to be one of the most backward States in labor conditions. I suppose Alabama and Mississippi labor under that charge. Avendale is one of the largest mills in the State of Alabama, and one that has been mentioned here. There is not a thing there that is not at your service either in this particular reel or in any other you want as to the actual conditions.

I suggest that Mr. Paul Helleyer, who often projects here, is prepared to move in here on an hour's notice and go to showing these films either before or after the noon session. It will take about 20 minutes.

Mr. KELLER. I think we can arrange to see those films after the testimony shall have been completed about 4:30 this afternoon. At that time we shall be glad to view those films.

Mr. COFFIN. Thank you.