7. On the principle that the entire fat structure must be protected by equalized rates, we further oppose the establishment of any preferential rates of duties on oils or fats made on the basis of trade uses. For example, there can be no distinction as between edible and inedible uses since the demands by various industries for oils and fats are inseparably connected with price influence, and it would be of no benefit in the maintenance of a price structure for an oil to be dutiable when intended for edible purposes and nondutiable, or dutiable at a lower rate, when intended for inedible purposes.

8. As to its total supply of fats, the United States is on a surplus-producing basis, but with respect to particular uses we have certain deficiencies. It is for that very reason that we are now asking for increases of duties and the equalization of rates. For the time has arrived when such a policy, if adopted by the Congress, would result in material benefits to the primary producers of the oilbearing products.

Table 5 (the total oil and fat situation in the United States) shows the position of the United States with regard to its fat supply. It will be seen that this country is using about 2,500,000,000 pounds more of oil and fats than it did in 1914. Total imports have increased from 372,000,000 pounds to 1,212,000,000 pounds. Total exports have varied from 861,000,000 pounds to 1,182,000,000 pounds with 979,000,000 being the total for 1927. Lard exports constitute about three-fourths of the total quantity. For practical purposes it may be said that this country is now importing about 1,000,000,000 pounds of all oils and fats including the domestic production of coconut oil from imported copra. It will readily be seen that so immense a volume of outside oils and fats coming in will have a dangerous effect upon domestic prices unless adequate tariff protection be given. It must also be evident that adequate tariff protection is essential in order to encourage an increase of production of the raw materials in this country from which oils and fats may be derived. Sources of increased production will be found in the peanut and soya bean industries, in the Corn Belt and in the diary industry which is capable of tremendous expansion, and in such increases of cottonseed as will be the result of world demand for lint cotton. Within the oils and fats industry, however, it is entirely possible to make certain shifts so that greater quantities of cottonseed oil may be diverted to interchangeable uses and greater quantities of lard be diverted from export to domestic consumption.

The total oils and fats situation in the United States

Includes as domestic production (all products of Philippines exported to United States--all copra 'ported into and crushed in United States).

The total oils and fats situation in the United States-Continued

1 Includes as domestic production (all products of Philippines exported to United States-all copra imported into and crushed in United States).

Source: 1914-1926, inclusive, Wright, The Tariff on Animal and Vegetable Oils, pp. 260-271, inclusive. 1927 compiled on same basis as above from U. S. D. C. Annual Report by Quarters, 1926-27, Animal and Vegetable Fats and Oils.

General remark: No account is taken in this table of stocks at beginning of year and hold over at end of year. Apparent consumption figure is therefore indicative of trend over period of years rather than oi net use in any given year.

9. We believe that the time has arrived when there should be a national tariff policy with respect to the future of the oils and fats industries of this nation. We believe that policy should be based upon the assumption that the domestic market is to be the dominant market both for the producers of the raw materials and the manufacturers of articles such as paint, varnish, and soap. It appears that the western European countries have, since the war, adopted such policies for themselves. They are pursuing consciously a program of scouring the world to secure raw materials in order to convert those materials into oils and animal food products thus employing their labor and guaranteeing a cheap feed supply and encouraging their crushing and exporting industries.

The results of such policies are strikingly shown in charts 8 and 9 which show respectively the net imports of vegetable oils into selected western European countries and the United States, and western European exports and the relative net imports of oleaginous raw materials into the same countries.

Another chart (chart 10) will be filed with the committee which will show the cumulative estimated consumption of imported vegetable oils and oleoginous raw materials in terms of oil by these countries and the United States.

These charts prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the growing trade of Western European countries in the loeoginous raw materials, and account for the lack of a market which our exporters of cottonseed oil have faced for the last few years in countries which formerly bought very large quantities.

With respect to the Philippines our soap makers must now face the competition of soap produced in the Philippine Islands from Philippine coconut oil. At the present time only 2.8 per cent of our total soap production goes into the export trade. Even though soap manufacturers may compete with the world by means of the drawback of the duty on the oil contained in exported soap, it is alse assumed that makers of varnish and paint must rely upon the domestic market. Under these conditions and in view of the growing tendency for the concentration of ownership in the various manufacturing industries utilizing the oils and fats we maintain that such users will not be affected by increased rates of duties, pro vided such rates are equalized, since all will be paying the same prices for raw materials and all will be selling in a protected domestic market.

We therefore respectfully submit that the present tariff structure on fats and oils and raw materials should be (1) increased and equalized on the basis of 45 per cent ad valorem; (2) that equivalent duties on raw materials should be based upon the oil content of the materials; (3) that no preferential duties should be established with respect to commodity uses or the countries from which such commodities are imported.

Respectfully submitted.

Charles W. Holman, Washington, D. C., representing the National
Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation; A. M. Loomis, Wash-
ington, D. C., representing the American Dairy Federation;
C. A. Stewart, Chicago, Ill.; J. S. Montgomery, South St. Paul,
Minn., representing the National Live Stock Producers groups;
Chester Gray, Washington, D. C., representing the American
Farm Bureau Federation; Fred C. Brenckman, Washington,
D. C., representing the National Grange; Charles S. Barrett,
Union City, Ga., representing the Farmers' Educational and
Cooperative Union of America; W. R. Morse, 101 Beekman
Street, New York City, representing American Fish Oil Associa-
tion, Virginia Fisherman's Association; Harden F. Taylor, 16
Exchange Place, New York City, representing United States
Fisheries Association, Atlantic Coast Fisheries Co., Bay State
Fishing Co., and Gordon Pew Fisheries Co.; J. A. Arnold,
Washington, D. C., representing the Southern Tariff Associa-
tion; J. H. Mills, Jenkinsburg, Ga., representing Georgia Farmers'
Union; E. D. Woodall, Dallas, Tex., representing the Texas Oil
Crushers' Association, the Oklahoma Oil Crushers' Association;
Harry D. Wilson, commissioner of agriculture and immigration
Baton Rouge, La; representing the Louisiana Farm Bureau
Federation, the Louisiana Dairymen's Association, and the
Louisiana Bankers' Association; Eugene Talmadge, commissioner
of agriculture, Atlanta, Ga.; and George E. Gilmer, Shreveport,
La., representing Planters' Cooperative Association, Shreveport
Chamber of Commerce.

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' FEDERATION AND ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS

CONSOLIDATED BRIEF IN REGARD TO CHANGES OF RATES OF DUTIES ON VEGETABLE ANIMAL, AND FISH OILS, FATS AND GREASES, AND THE RAW MATERIALS FROM WHICH ANY OF THEM ARE DERIVED, NOW INCLUDED IN PARAGRAPHS 53, 54, 55, 57, 3,701, 703, 760, 1626, 1630, 1632, AND 1691 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1922

Fon. WILLIS C. HAWLEY,

Chairman Ways and Means Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: On behalf of the organizations listed below, the undersigned have the honor to file this brief in support of tariff increases or adjustments indicated hereafter:

The National Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation, Washington, D. C., resenting 316,000 dairy farmers; Arkansas City Milk Producers' Association, Arkansas City, Kans.; Berrien County (Mich.) Milk Producers' Association, Penton Harbor, Mich.; California Milk Producers' Association, Los Angeles, Cif; Challenge Cream & Butter Association, Los Angeles, Calif.; Chicago ty-Union Exchange, Chicago, Ill.; Connecticut Milk Producers' Association, hartford, Conn.; Cooperative Pure Milk Association of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Coos Bay Mutual Creamery Co., Marshfield, Oreg.; Dairymen's CooperaSales Co., Pittsburgh, Pa.; Dairymen's League Cooperative Association New York, N. Y.; Des Moines Cooperative Dairy Marketing Association, Moines, Iowa; Farmers' Milk Producers' Association, Richmond, Va.; Harbor Dairymen's Association, Satsop, Wash.; Illinois Milk Producers' ciation, Peoria, Ill.; Indiana Dairy Marketing Association, Muncie, Ind.; and Empire Dairy Producers' Association, Spokane, Wash.; Inter-State Milk ricers' Association (Inc.), Philadelphia, Pa.; Iowa Cooperative Creamery Pretaries' & Managers' Association, Waterloo, Iowa; Land O' Lakes Creameries,

Minneapolis, Minn.; Lewis-Pacific Dairymen's Association, Chehalis, a-h.; McLean County Milk Producers' Association, Bloomington, Ill.; Marya & Virginia Milk Producers' Association, Washington, D. C.; Maryland

State Dairymen's Association, Baltimore, Md.; Miami Valley Cooperative Milk Producers' Association, Dayton, Ohio; Michigan Milk Producers' Association, Detroit, Mich.; Milk Producers' Association of San Diego County, San Diego, Calif.; Milk Producers' Association of Summit County and vicinity. Akron, Ohio; Milwaukee Cooperative Milk Producers, Milwaukee, Wis.; National Cheese Producers' Federation, Plymouth, Wis.; New England Milk Producers Association, Boston, Mass.; Northwestern (Ohio) Cooperative Sales Co., Wau seon, Ohio; Ohio Farmers' Cooperative Milk Association, Cleveland, Ohio Pure Milk Association, Chicago, Ill.; Scioto Valley Cooperative Milk Producers Association, Columbus, Ohio; Seattle Milk Shippers' Association, Seattle, Wash. Skagit County Dairymen's Association, Burlington, Wash.; Snohomish County Dairymen's Association, Everett, Wash.; St. Louis Pure Milk Producers' Coopera tive Association, East St. Louis, Ill.; Stark County Milk Producers' Association Canton, Ohio; Tillamook County Creamery Association, Tillamook, Oreg. Twin City Milk Producers' Association, St. Paul, Minn.; Twin Ports Coopera tive Dairy Association, Superior, Wis.; Valley of Virginia Cooperative Mill Producers' Association, Harrisonburg, Va.; Whatcom County Dairymen' Association, Bellingham, Wash.; Yakima Dairymen's Association, Yakima Wash.

American Dairy Federation, Washington, D. C., representing the followin national organizations: Allied States Creameries Association; American Asse ciation of Creamery Butter Manufacturers; American Guernsey Cattle Club American Jersey Cattle; Ayrshire Breeders' Association; Brown Swiss Cattl Breeders' Association; Certified Milk Producers Association; Dairy Farm an Trade Press; Dairy and Ice Cream Machinery and Supplies Association; Ho stein-Friesian Association of America; International Association of Milk Dealer National Association of Dairy Supply House; National Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers; National Cheese Institute; National Creamery Buttermaker Association; National Dairy Association; National Dairy Council.

And the following affiliated State organizations: Cincinnati Milk Exchang Iowa Creamery Butter Manufacturers' Association; Iowa Holstein Breede Association; Milk Dealers League, Cleveland; Nebraska Creamery Butter Man facturers' Association; New England Ice Cream Manufacturers' Association New Jersey Holstein Cooperative Association; New York Milk Conference Boar Ohio Swiss Cheese Association; Oregon Dairymen's Association; Southern Ca fornia Milk Dealers' Association; Washington Creamery Operators Associatio Wisconsin Brown Swiss Association; Wisconsin Dairymen's Association; Ve mont Dairy Plant Association.

American Cotton Growers Exchange, Dallas, Tex., representing 100,000 cott growers through the following organizations: Alabama Farm Bureau Cott Association, Montgomery, Ala.; Arizona Pimacotton Growers Associatio Phoenix, Ariz.; Arkansas Cotton Growers Cooperative Association, Little Roc Ark.; Georgia Cotton Growers Cooperative Association, Atlanta, Ga.; Louisia Farm Bureau Cotton Growers Cooperative Association, Shreveport, La.; Miss sippi Farm Bureau Cotton Association, Jackson, Miss.; Missouri Cotton Gro ers Cooperative Association, New Madrid, Mo.; North Carolina Cotton Gro ers Association, Raleigh, N. C.; Oklahoma Cotton Growers Association, Ok homa City, Okla.; South Carolina Cotton Growers Association, Columbia, S. Tennessee Cotton Growers Association, Memphis, Tenn.; Texas Farm Bure Cotton Association, Dallas, Tex.; Southwestern Irrigated Cotton Growers As ciation, El Paso, Tex.

American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, D. C., representing 1,000,0 members of county farm bureaus associated with the following State uni Alabama Farm Bureau Federation, Montgomery, Ala.; Arizona Farm Bure Federation, Phoenix, Ariz.; Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation, Little Ro Ark.; California Farm Bureau Federation, Berkeley, Calif.; Colorado State Fa Bureau Federation, Del Norte, Colo.; Connecticut Farm Bureau Federati Andover, Conn.; Delaware Farm Bureau Federation, Dover, Del.; Idaho Fa Bureau Federation, McCammon, Idaho; Illinois Agricultural Association, C cago, Ill.; Indiana Farm Bureau Federation, Indianapolis, Ind.; Iowa Fa Bureau Federation, Des Moines, Iowa; Kansas State Farm Bureau, Manhatt Kans.; Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation, St. Matthews, Ky.; Louisiana Fa Bureau Federation, Baton Rouge, La.; Maryland Farm Bureau Federati Baltimore, Md.; Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation, Waltham, Ma Michigan State Farm Bureau, Lansing, Mich.; Minnesota Farm Bureau Fede tion, St. Paul, Minn.; Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation, Jackson, Mi Missouri Farm Bureau Federation, Jefferson City, Mo.; Montana Farm Bur