7

of labor and the geographical distribution of that reemployment, and in addition would tend toward monopoly by the concentration of the production in a few efficient plants (II-G-11, 13). The same issue arose in respect of the application made by Mr. Stillman of the Goodyear Company in behalf of the so-called “Big Four’ tire producers for exclusion of the tire fabric operations from the scope of the term “cotton textile industry’ and so from the consequent limitation upon machine hours (I-Q-II, R-1-5). A con trary position was taken by Mr. Seiberling speaking for the non integrated tire companies which obtain their fabrics from outside textile mills instead of their own subsidiaries as is the case with the “Big Four.” It was estimated by him that the difference in cost of running an eighty-hour cotton-fabric mill against one running one hundred forty-four machine hours would be 66 per pound or equiva lent to 25¢ a tire which “is more (profit) per tire than the industry has made within the last three years ” §§. This situation in his opinion, would “ unquestionably tend to promote monopoly by the Big Four" (I-S-7). On these grounds, a request was made on behalf of all the manu facturers of tires for a delay until September 1st in the application of the machine-hour provision of the code to spindles or looms pro ducing tires, yarns, or fabrics (memoranda of Mr. C. A. Stillman). In respect of the request for exemptions by the makers of surgical dressing units and similar requests involving the upholstery, drapery and knitwear units, it is clear that the granting of an exemption would place them in a privileged position and would discriminate against other units of the cotton-textile industry making the same or similar products. As that would contravene the provision in Section 3A of the Act against permitting “monopolies or monopolistic practices,” it is recommended that these requests be denied. In respect to the production of tire yarn and fabrics, the cotton textile industry itself recognizes that owing to the elaborate machin ery involved a violently sudden limitation might have a serious effect on the production and sale of automobiles and tires. It is therefore recommended that the interested tire companies present within two weeks after the approval of this code statistical evidence as to the need for limited exemption, and during those two weeks the pro visions of the Code limiting the operation of productive machinery should not apply to spindles, looms, or production of tire yarns or fabrics, and that at the end of three weeks a final decision on this exemption be made by the Administration. In respect of limitation of machinery hours of the industry as a whole, the testimony of the workers (particularly III-R-2) and the employers (particularly II-B-1) is eloquent of the danger and distress from overproduction in the fact of the admitted excessive capacity in the industry. The comparisons given in the report of the Direc tor of the Division of Research and Planning between textile and cotton goods industries on the one hand, and general manufacturing on the other hand, disclose the prolonged depression of the industry even during the decade of the post-war prosperity for general manu facturing. The industry has been consistently losing relative to manufacturing industry as a whole in values of product and, what is the most significant, in value added by manufacture, which is the difference between selling value and the cost of materials out of which

29852—296–124—34

2

*