Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

facturers have gone by the wayside. But that was in years past and cannot be attributed to the reciprocal trade agreements, because that was all before 1935.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have this chart put in the record.

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

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

Mr. FORAND. Then we have here the number of units manufactured by Elgin, Hamilton, and Waltham put together. Back in 1935, it shows that 1,045,000 units were manufactured, but in 1950 it was 1,930,000, almost 2 million units manufactured. So that would indicate that under the reciprocal trade agreements you have been manufacturing more watches, except during the war period perhaps, and at that time, of course, I realize that all of the watch industry was engaged in war work to the point where there was such a shortage of timepieces of all types that a brother-in-law of mine who used to have a drugstore, had a lot of old alarm clocks that he had not been able to sell, hired a man to put them in condition and disposed of all of them at double the price he had paid for them. So I can well appreciate that you were not manufacturing timepieces during that period.

But this table that I have here and it also is taken from the American Watch Association brief filed before the Tariff Commission, and I think it is pretty authentic-shows a very favorable picture of the American watch industry. I ask unanimous consent to put that table in the record.

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

TABLE I-Elgin, Hamilton, and Waltham Watch Co.'s., analysis of sales, 1935-50

[blocks in formation]

1 Not significant during the war years due to war production.

* 1949 includes Waltham sales only for the period Jan. 1-June 25, 1949.

Source: Net sales from published annual reports. Unit sales from exhibits Nos. 10 and 15.

Mr. SHENNAN. I think I ought to be permitted to comment on Mr. Forand's statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you may answer.

Mr. SHENNAN. First of all, the American Watch Association, as I am sure you know, is the importers' association, and these figures are from that association.

Mr. FORAND. But right there, are you contending that these tables are incorrect?

Mr. SHENNAN. No. I simply point that out because there is a confusion in names-the American Watch Association is the importers' association.

Mr. FORAND. I thought you were challenging the figures; and if that were true, I would want to know about it.

Mr. SHENNAN. I have not seen the figures, but in any case I would like to point out that the state of the economy in 1935 was somewhat different than it was in 1950, 1951, or 1952, so to compare absolute production in 1935 in any business that I know of, versus the production in 1950, 1951, or 1952, requires a little explaining.

The figures that you read, as I heard them quickly, were approximately correct, but the fact is that since 1941, which was the year before the war, when there was a pretty good level of economy in this country, the increase in production of these companies you mentioned actually was only about 50,000 pieces, a matter of about 2 percent, if it is that much; half a percent, I guess it is.

These figures have been submitted before, that I am referring to. Mr. FORAND. But the table does indicate that you have made continual progress. If your contention is with regard to the "share" doctrine, of course that is a different argument altogether.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in the record another table here, taken from the same document, the American Watch Association brief, showing a summary of income accounts, cash dividend payments, and net worth of the Elgin National Watch Co. from 1935 to 1950, inclusive; and another table, again on the Elgin National Watch Co., bringing the figures up to date, including 1952 and part of 1953.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The tables referred to follow :)

Elgin National Watch Co.—Summary of income accounts, cash dividend payments, and net worth since Dec. 31, 1935

[blocks in formation]

1951. 1952.

1953 1952.

[blocks in formation]

For first 12 weeks of 1953 with comparison same period 1952

[blocks in formation]

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Shennan, as I understand it, the main point that you are emphasizing here is the importance of the American watch industry to national defense.

Mr. SHENNAN. That was one of my two main points, yes, sir. The other was the escape clause procedure.

Mr. COOPER. I also understood you to say you were supporting the Simpson bill.

Mr. SHENNAN. I made some comments on the Simpson bill. In general, I should say we would support it.

Mr. COOPER. Do you support the provisions of the Simpson bill that confer discretionary authority on the Tariff Commission and leave the President out of it?

Mr. SHENNAN. My comments on that, which were contained in my brief, were that if the President disagreed with the Tariff Commission, we felt he should have the approval of Congress before he turned down the recommendations of the Tariff Commission.

Mr. COOPER. On the question of national defense, do you think the Tariff Commission is as well qualified to pass on questions of national defense and the importance of various industries to the national defense as the President of the United States?

Mr. SHENNAN. Perhaps not, but they have a staff of investigators who can ascertain the facts on the question from the Defense Department or from whatever division may have the knowledge or information and judgment to give it.

Mr. COOPER. So you think the Tariff Commission would be a wellqualified agency to pass on questions of national defense?

Mr. SHENNAN. I would think that the Defense Department was most qualified.

Mr. COOPER. Do you not think the President of the United States would be better qualified than the Tariff Commission?

Mr. SHENNAN. Yes; I think our present President would.
Mr. COOPER. Certainly the present President of the United States!
Mr. SHENNAN. Yes.

Mr. COOPER. I just happen to notice that in the hearings in 1951. the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs is quoted as saying: "The Tariff Commission is not qualified to make determinations regarding the national defense," and I think you would agree that the Tariff Commission is not an agency qualified to pass on questions relating to national defense.

« AnteriorContinuar »