Page images

cent decrease. All this being on the basis of a tariff to be estimated upon the difference of cost of production here and abroad.

I asked the textile manufacturers who were dissatisfied with the presentation of their case before you why they did not express themselves freely to you. Their answer was that they had been so busy making cloth and trying to make money that they really didn't know how to advise you; that there were gross inaccuracies in their schedules; that only a commission or body of experts appointed by yourselves and subject to your authority could help them to determine the needs of their industry.

The gentleman is in the city now who made that statement to me, and I think in hearing of my voice.


The unfairness of the present tariff is fairly illustrated by the pressed-glass schedule. I have letters from several makers of pressed glass that their schedules may be reduced almost any amount. One maker of glassware says he wants no protection; another manufacturer of bottles and window glass says no protection; a third, making bottles, wants none. Pressed glass is made as cheaply in this country as anywhere in the world. President McKinley, when chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and framing the McKinley bill, knew this and recommended accordingly, and yet pressed glass bears a duty of 65 per cent, an absolutely unwarranted rate, as will be found upon any sort of fair investigation.

I know a gentleman who sells a very great deal of pressed glass abroad at better prices than he charges his home consumers. Mr. LONGWORTII. Is pressed glass the ordinary window glass? Mr. MILES. No, sir; that is blown glass.

[ocr errors]

Mr. LONGWORTH. You referred to window glass a moment ago. Mr. MILES. To one window-glass man; Bottles and window glass "that is what his title is, so I put them both in. I am giving the information as I got it from other people. I understand that most grades of the pressed glass need no protection.

Mr. LONGWORTII. But you do not find that with respect to most of the window glass?

Mr. MILES. No, sir.

Mr. FORDNEY. You, of course, do not know how reliable the information you get is?

Mr. MILES. Well, these manufacturers give their information to me, and if they do not know their business, then I certainly do not. Mr. FORDNEY. They are facts as they know them. Why do they not come before us and give those facts?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. The witness is giving the names of certain people to the stenographer so that we may summon them.

Mr. FORDNEY. Oh, I did not understand that. I only thought it was a little queer that a man could send a messenger and not come himself, when he was advocating changes in the tariff.

Mr. MILES. This is my general correspondence on the tariff, and my information comes from letters that I have received, and which I will send to you.


The president of the greatest plate-glass institution in the country challenges my sincerity with reference to protection. I beg to pay my compliments to him by informing you that the plate-glass schedule is extremely unfair, and that it must be corrected unless the wretched opportunity is continued to the plate-glass trust to rob the people.

On the larger sizes, being those tariff's which determine the business situation in the plate-glass industry, the duty is about 80 per cent of the selling price. Before the industrial commission a former president of the Pittsburg Plate Glass Company testified that the total wage cost is about 48 per cent of the selling price, or about one-half of the tariff. The material costs little more in this country than in Europe. Labor is 50 to 70 per cent higher. When 80 per cent tariff on the important sizes was given, this trust, like all others, very properly took it as permission from the United States Congress to raise their prices to the consumer. They added 100 per cent to their selling prices in about two years' time, giving one-sixth of the advance to their laborers and five-sixths to their stockholders. With a cost of production not far from that in Europe, the difference in wage cost, which is very considerable, being offset by saving in fuel and materials, they made the American consumer pay nearly $2 for every $1 worth of glass he bought. They raised their prices so high that importers were able to pay the excessive tariff and bring plate glass in to advantage. Whereupon the plate-glass trust showed a new phase of trust management in writing importers that they must not bring in glass or they would be cut off from home supply upon such sizes as could not be imported to advantage, and the importers had to discontinue their effort to save the home consumer and advantage themselves, and leave that consumer wholly at the mercy of the trust upon an increase of price of 100 per cent.

I have the price list, and would be glad to leave it.

About five months ago the plate glass people got into a little quarrel among themselves and cut their prices 35 per cent. The factories have been running full time at this lower rate. If Congress will insist upon proof of costs they will save the American people from possibility of further extortion upon their purchases of plate glass. The home makers during the past year under the excessive tariff held 85 per cent of the home market. These figures, however, do not indicate the extent of their control, because they hold substantially a complete control upon those larger sizes of glass upon which the success of the business depends, the smaller sizes being only cuttings or salvage from defective or broken large sheets, wherein the profit lies. Nor does their past hold up of the buyers indicate present overcharge, but only the opportunity you still leave open to the makers under the Dingley law.

In conclusion, if I may be permitted to say to you what is the desire of 90 per cent of the manufacturers of the United States, in view of the infinite difficulties of the situation and the perplexities of the manufacturing problem, I can only say this: There is a thorough appreciation of the American system of government in all its phases. But the manufacturers of the United States feel that it is absolutely impossible, except upon ceaseless endeavor, either for them or for

Congress to discover what are the needs of each and all industries in the way of protection while the consumer is as certain that it is impossible for him or for Congress hastily to determine what are his rights or his privileges in the matter of his purchases and government regulation thereof. Cutlery, earthenware, and pottery-each and all of our various industries are now operating under a tariff that is extremely inexact, and as Germany and other foreign countries have tariffs that are a thousand times more carefully worked out, it is, in general words, the extreme and insistent desire of those who manufacture and of those who consume that the next tariff be not hastily framed. that it be based upon the absolute truth and the disclosure of all the evidence of the case. It is absolutely clear to such manufacturers and consumers that such disclosures can be made only as the Congress appoint a committee or commission, or whatever it be called a body of men who will devote themselves absolutely to the problem, will go to the factories, investigate the books of cost, compel the submission of testimony, administer oaths and act upon the principle of a just and fair protection as defined by the Presidentelect and by the Republican party, through its leaders, and that this body shall, upon the conclusion of its investigations, upon either an early or a remote period, bring back and lay before your honorable. committee the full and final data as such a commission only can determine it. Agitation will never cease, the hurt and discomfort of an inaccurate and unfair tariff will never cease, until this commission plan is worked out and made effective. Those who trifle with public opinion and with public patience do it at a very serious risk. This matter has been thought out and worked out with such extreme care and under such compelling circumstances as makes it, in the judgment of all, a necessary step in the solution of the question.

Now, I am going to make a statement that is a little involved, but if I make it with sufficient clearness I believe you will find it suggestive and helpful. It is upon meat and hides.

I have consulted for two years with the national representatives of the stock raisers and of the packers and of the tanners. From what I have heard from these three I beg to suggest as follows as concerns hides and meats:

The best solution of the question is one that makes money for all and loses it for none. The figures I give are close approximations for the average animal as handled at any of the great western packing houses. The average hide, as taken from a thousand-pound steer and salted, being the hide as it is ordinarily bought and sold, weighs about 55 pounds, and has a commercial value of about 113 cents per pound, or $6.25. The tariff being 15 per cent, amounts, therefore, on the average steer to 90 cents or $1. As the steer is worth, delivered at the packing house, from $40 to $50, the tariff on the hide is about cent of the value of the steer.

2 per

It is entirely uncertain whether the farmer gets any of this 90 cents or not. He may get some of it, and at times he may get all of it, but there is a strong probability that the packer gets all, for the making of prices, both on live stock and on meat, rests as a matter of fact with the packing trust. The packers and the growers are both thoroughly aroused and dissatisfied because of the restriction, unnecessary as they believe, of the foreign market, and many stock raisers and all the packers are willing to give up the tariff on hides

if only they may have an enlarged foreign market, developed through governmental negotiations.

The statements above made are approved by Judge Cowan, who appeared before you Saturday in the interest of the live-stock raisers of the United States.

This 2 per cent protection, as estimated upon the value of the live animal, is small. Judge Cowan and others believe that an enlarged foreign market would add from $2 to $4 to the value of every steer in the United States. How easy, then, to remove the tariff on hides, increase the value of the live stock by enlarged foreign markets, and save those independent tanners whose existence is imperiled by the packing trust through the trust ownership of tanneries. In doing this we should make a foreign market for $50,000,000 more of our meats per year.

As I pleaded Saturday for the continued existence of tens of thousands of independent nontrustified manufacturers whose existence is threatened by trusts from whom they must buy their materials, so I plead to-day for the independent tanners. I am informed by some of the strongest of them-men who have made a great success of their business in the past-that the ownership of many tanneries by the trusts and the insistent request of trusts that the independent tanners now tan hides by the piece, as employees, as it were, of the trust, imperils the existence of independent tanners, who must soon go out of business unless they get relief.

It works this way: The independent tanner asks the packer for a price on hides. The packer names a higher price than the independent tanner feels that he can pay. The latter declines to make the purchase; he tries again a couple of days later, as it were, and is then told that the packer has disposed of the hides which he formerly priced, the fact being that the tanner has sent the hides to one of his own trust tanneries. The independent must then shut his shop down or take hides at such a price as is offered. The packing house insists upon a high price upon the hide and makes a price on the finished leather so little above the hide price as to give no adequate margin for the independent tanner. The independent must take his chance upon this narrow margin or must yield to the tanners' suggestion that all hides be tanned "piecework." If he tans piecework the packer has his inspectors going through the tanner's factory and in a short time the tanner has lost his independence and the control of his business.

One of the oldest and most successful tanners of the United States told me a couple of weeks ago that he would now sell his factory at anything like a fair price and go out of the business. If he ever went back into the business, he would do it in Antwerp-a free port. He took me into his storage rooms, where were many thousands of foreign hides. The home supply is insufficient; hides must be imported, and the packing trust is being allowed to add the tariff to Such hides as they produce and control the situation in all directions. Ships from South America carrying hides usually go to Antwerpa free port and from there make inquiries by wire of possible buyers, so that the hides wanted in this country from South America usually have to come roundabout from Antwerp or other European ports. The trade is handicapped in every way, and there is every probability that a continuation of the present rate on hides is nothing

less than a death warrant to independent tanning in the United States. The farmer gets so little from the tariff in any direction that it seems cruel to suggest the removal of a tariff from which he may get even the slightest advantage. The statements, however, from the national representatives of various farming organizations indicate that the farmer is more anxious to be relieved as a consumer from trust extortions under the tariff than to secure a continuance of the tariff on hides and such other items as are of doubtful assistance to him.

The consummation most desired by stock raisers and packers alike is the enlarged foreign market. We now ship neither meat nor live animals in quantity to any European countries except Great Britain and Belgium. Germany imports $200,000,000 of foodstuffs, only $50,000,000 of this coming from us. She has clearly indicated that she might give us a greatly enlarged market for our meats if our meat inspection were brought up to her standard (which the packers could easily do), and if we would make her a concession on sugar such as we give to Cuba. If this statement covers difficulties that seem considerable, I beg to say that they are no greater difficulties than the business man finds every hour of his life in the conduct of his affairs, and no greater than Germany is delighted to meet at any time through her very competent tariff commission, which is willing to have more than one phase presented at once in a trade complication, and who, by such consideration of many phases to one problem, reached that consummation which most relieves her industries and to the greatest extent extends her commerce.

The difficulty with our entire stock and meat problem is that the American consumer insists upon eating only the best cuts; when choice cuts sell for 17 cents retail the whole carcass (dressed) sells for 63 cents and cheap cuts at from 4 cents to 8 cents. The poorer two-thirds of each carcass finds an unwilling market in the United States, but would be most welcome to the common peoples of European countries, who seldom eat meat, and we are being constantly advised through our consular reports and otherwise of the willingness with which foreign nations would negotiate if we would meet them upon the basis of a fair reciprocity.

If we would but give a little concession to Germany on our sugar, it would give us a chance on our meat. We would have to do just two things to get it-give reciprocity and the meat inspection that Germany requires in her own abattoirs.

Mr. FORDNEY. In other words, you think that if we give Germany everything that she wants, then she will play with us?

Mr. MILES. What she wants in two particulars only, as I have told


Mr. FORDNEY. But those two particulars will destroy the sugar industry in order to increase our sales of meat in Germany?

Mr. MILES. Absolutely not. I have it from members of the Government that if you will make a concession putting Germany on the same basis as Cuba, it would be greatly to our advantage.

Mr. GAINES. That is, let sugar from Germany in on the same basis as the Cuban sugar?

Mr. FORDNEY. Suppose we put Cuban sugar back up to the ad valorem rate of duty of 1.68 per pound; what would Germany do

about that?

« PreviousContinue »