tutional power as Chief Executive but because the Congress has constituted him an agent for the better execution of some legislative policy, and in the execution of which powers personal or property rights are involved, then such acts are ministerial only, and are subject to review by the courts. * * * An analysis of section 315 discloses that the President is not therein given any discretion as to what he shall do, but only as to how he shall do it. Other laws and decisions thereunder were examined and the following was said in the concluding statements: From a consideration of these authorities, together with the evident purpose of the Congress as expressed in the act before us, section 315, imposing sufficient duties upon imported products to equalize the difference in cost of production in the United States and the principal competing country, is a valid exercise of the constitutional grant of power to the Congress to regulate commerce. The Supreme Court of the United States on June 6, 1927, granted the importers' petition for a writ of certiorari. The constitutional question is the main issue presented in the assignments of error. On October 10, 1927, the Supreme Court denied the motion of appellant importers to advance this case on the docket. (2) INVOICE PRICES OPINION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL In the eighth annual report, pages 8 and 9, the ninth annual report, pages 16-18, and the tenth annual report, pages 14-16, attention was drawn to the effect of certain limitations imposed by section 315 and to problems arising in its administration. One of these matters is the subject of an opinion rendered on October 19, 1927, by the Attorney General at the request of the President concerning the commissioner's report upon rag rugs. The difficulty, time required, and expense of getting foreign production costs hampered the administration of section 315 from the first. This has been pointed out in the annual reports cited above. Where cost data could not be obtained directly from the foreign producers the commission has been confronted with the question whether the operation of the statute could be frustrated by refusal of parties interested to furnish the desired information, or whether other relevant and material evidence having substantial probative value should be resorted to for the purpose of arriving at costs of production. Section 315 was deemed to authorize the latter course of action. Upon the use of invoice prices in the first instance, without attempting to obtain abroad foreign cost data, differences of opinion have been expressed in the commission. The opinion of the Attorney General with respect to the ragrug investigation holds: (1) It is a "necessary inference" from the language of section 315 "that the Tariff Commission is required to investigate and report on all those matters which the President is required to consider, and that a report of the Tariff Commission which does not deal with all. the matters which the President is required to consider does not satisfy the statute." (2) "The President is required to take into consideration wages, costs of materials, and other items in the cost of production in the United States and in competing foreign countries so far as he finds it practicable, and unless it is impracticable to consider such matters the Tariff Commission is required to investigate and report upon them." (3) "While the decision as to whether matters specified in the statute may be omitted from consideration because it is impracticable to consider them rests finally with the President, the commission must, in the first instance, exercise and express its judgment on that subject, with a view to assisting the President." * * (4) That "* if the commission, because it deems it impracticable, refrains from investigating and reporting upon any of the matters mentioned in subsection (c), its report should disclose that the commission considers the inquiry impracticable and the reasons for its conclusion, in order to enable the President to determine for himself whether it is impracticable to consider the matters in question." (5) That "* a report of the commission, which discloses that no detailed investigation has been made into wages, costs of materials, and other items entering into the cost of production in competing foreign countries, and which determines costs of production abroad only by inference from the invoice prices of imported articles, fails to satisfy the requirements of the statute, unless it appears that the detailed investigation is impracticable." * * * * (6) That "* no doubt the provision in this statute that the conditions in production in competing foreign countries should be considered by the President 'in so far as he finds it practicable' was put there primarily to cover situations where, through obstructive methods by foreign producers or in foreign countries the commission finds it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the necessary information." (7) That "* * * under the provisions of this statute the President may refrain from taking into consideration wages, costs of materials, and other items of production in competing foreign countries usually ascertainable by direct inquiry or field work where he finds that such an inquiry is impracticable in the sense of being futile." (8) "It is obvious that a field inquiry in Japan, developing more accurate information as to cost of production there, would not affect the result in this particular case unless it disclosed that the cost of production in Japan is higher than the invoice prices of Japanese imported rugs. In other words, a field inquiry abroad as to wages, costs of materials, and other items of cost of foreign production would be impracticable, in the sense of being useless, unless foreign costs are higher than the invoice prices of imported rugs.' (9) "If the commission is completely satisfied that the cost of production abroad does not exceed the invoice prices of the imported rugs, and is of the opinion that the inquiry abroad would therefore be futile because it could not affect the result of the investigation, and the President, acting on that suggestion, accepts the view of the commission and finds it impracticable, in the sense of being futile, to consider in detail the wages, costs of materials, and other items of cost of production abroad, such action, in my opinion, would be in conformity with the requirements of the statute." (10) "It may be that the decision of the commission not to undertake field work in Japan was made before it developed that such an inquiry could produce no information which would affect the outcome of the investigation, but if it has developed, as a result of the investigation, that the decision to omit field work abroad was right, it is unimportant that the justification for the decision may not have been apparent when the decision was made." (11) "Although the decision as to whether it is practicable to take into consideration any matters specified in the statute rests with the President, he is entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the commission on any matter which he is required to deal with, and in this case the commission may appropriately be called upon to supplement its report by expressing a definite conclusion and judgment on the question whether, on the facts of this particular case, field work aboard would produce any information which could affect the result." (12) "Nothing said in this opinion is intended to suggest that in those cases where the commission is required to undertake investigation of wages, costs of material, and other items entering into costs of production in foreign countries, agents must be sent abroad for that purpose. It may often be that the required information is already available here, or may be obtained in other ways." The use of invoice prices, when warranted by the law as construed by the Attorney General, should tend to lessen the friction caused by direct examination of the books of record of foreign producers. The Attorney General's opinion was requested by the President with respect to an investigation where invoice prices with all permissible duties added thereto were less than domestic costs of production. As evidence of foreign cost the invoice price is admittedly deficient in an investigation where the full statutory increase or decrease of duty is not warranted by the cost comparison. VI. TARIFF CHANGES UNDER SECTION 315 1. CHANGES BY PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION Since the publication of the tenth annual report of the commission, the following changes in rates of duty assessed by the tariff act of 1922 have been proclaimed by the President following investigations conducted by the Tariff Commission: On February 23, 1927, the duty on iron in pigs and iron kentledge was increased from 75 cents per ton to $1.121⁄2 per ton, effective March 25, 1927. On February 23, 1927, the duty on gold leaf was increased from 55 cents per hundred leaves to 822 cents per hundred leaves, effective March 25, 1927. On June 8, 1927, the duty on Swiss cheese of the Emmenthaler type was increased from 5 cents per pound but not less than 25 per cent ad valorem to 72 cents per pound but not less than 371⁄2 per cent ad valorem, effective July 8, 1927. On July 20, 1927, the duty on cresylic acid, provided for in paragraph 27, was decreased from 40 per cent based on the American selling price and 7 cents per pound to 20 per cent based on the American selling price and 31⁄22 cents per pound, effective August 19, 1927. On October 31, 1927, the duty on phenol, provided for in paragraph 27, was decreased from 40 per cent based on the American selling price and 7 cents per pound to 20 per cent based on the American selling price and 32 cents per pound, effective November 30, 1927. On November 10, 1927, the duty on crude magnesite was increased from five-sixteenths to fifteen thirty-seconds of 1 cent per pound and on caustic calcined magnesite from five-eighths to fifteen-sixteenths of 1 cent per pound, effective December 10, 1927. 2. PROTESTS AGAINST ASSESSMENT OF DUTIES UNDER Numerous protests have been filed at various ports of entry against the action of collectors of customs in assessing duties under proclamations of the President pursuant to section 315. These protests relate to wheat, wheat flour, barium dioxide, sodium nitrite, oxalic acid, potassium chlorate, men's sewed straw hats, butter, print rollers, iron in pigs, and methyl alcohol, commonly called methanol. Practically all of the protests specifically allege the unconstitutionality of section 315. Others make additional claims, among which are (1) that the duties imposed in Title I of the tariff act of 1922 equalize differences in costs of production in the United States and in the principal competing countries, and (2) that duties were taken on merchandise not covered by the President's proclamation and therefore not dutiable thereunder. The latter claim has particular reference to butter. The records of the United States Customs Court show that all such protests are placed on the docket and, when reached for hearing, are suspended pending a decision in the case before the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionality of section 315. În addition to the protests, there are appeals from decisions of appraising officers concerning the dutiable value of taximeters, on which the President increased the duties from $3 each and 45 per cent ad valorem on foreign valuation to $3 each and 27.1 per cent ad valorem on American selling price. VII. PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 316 1. COMPLAINTS AND INVESTIGATIONS Unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation or sale of articles are declared unlawful by section 316. During the last year various communications have been received concerning such alleged unfair methods of competition and unfair acts. Of these communications, three were complaints under oath making a total of 24 complaints filed with the commission since the enactment of that section. The complaint of unfair competition with respect to granite was dismissed without prejudice, and two of the cases in which investigations had been ordered by the commission were concluded, namely, investigations with respect to manila rope and synthetic phenolic resin of form C. In addition, preliminary work was conducted upon other pending complaints which are now before the commission for action. Manila rope.-The investigation with respect to manila rope was concluded by report of the commission made to the President on April 29, 1927. The findings of the commission were to the effect that the importation into the United States or the sale therein of rope labeled or described as manila rope or bolt rope, which in fact is com posed wholly or in part of fiber or fibers other than manila, constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair act under section 316. On June 13, 1927, the President approved the findings of the commission and directed the Secretary to exclude from entry into the United States all such rope unless the description thereof be qualified by words clearly indicating that the imported rope is composed wholly or in part of such other fiber or fibers. This order does not, however, prevent the importation of rope composed of a mixture of fibers imported as such. The opinion, findings, and recommendation of the commission and the action of the President in this matter appear in a separate publication. Synthetic phenolic resin.-The commission's investigation for the purposes of section 316 of the tariff act of 1922 of unfair acts and practices with respect to synthetic phenolic resin of form C was instituted on April 16, 1926. Pending investigation a temporary order excluding from entry into the United States the articles_complained of was issued. (Treasury Decisions 41512, 41895.) Hearings were held and briefs were filed and on May 26, 1927, the commission sent its findings to parties of record and others concerned. The findings of the commission briefly summarized are as follows: 1. That the industry in the United States engaged in the manufacture of synthetic phenolic resin of form C and products thereof is efficiently and economically operated within the intent and meaning of section 316. 2. That a good will has been established for products of synthetic phenolic resin of form C and that the name Bakelite has become identified with complainants' products in the minds both of dealers and of the purchasing public. 3. That patents involved in the investigation are valid and that articles were imported into the United States and sold therein in violation of rights under such patents, which importation and sale constitute unfair methods of competition or unfair acts within the intent and meaning of section 316. 4. That imported products of synthetic phenolic resin of form C are imported without any distinguishing mark, name, inscription, or label other than the country of origin so as to avoid confusion between imported and domestic products on the part of the purchasing public, which facilitates passing off and constitutes an unfair method of competition or unfair act within the intent and meaning of section 316. 5. That apart from violation of patent rights and failure to mark imported articles so as to distinguish them from domestic articles importers have not practiced any unfair method of competition or unfair act. 6. That imported articles are sold at less than complainants' sales prices and alleged costs of production but such practice alone does not constitute an unfair method of competition or unfair act. Commission Dixon dissented from the findings based upon violation of patents expressing doubt as to "the jurisdiction of the Tariff Commission to determine the validity of contested patents which are involved in said findings and recommendations." Commissioner Costigan dissented on the grounds: (1) That "there is scant reason to conclude that the Congress * empowered or intended to empower the Tariff Commission |