and that the average freight rate from the Belgian factory to Antwerp is 13 francs per 1,000 kilos, which figures out 113 cents per 100 pounds, which amount should be added to the freight rates from Antwerp in order to arrive at an equal basis of figuring a comparison between the freight rates from the foreign factories and those from the domestic factories.

So, summing up the whole matter, we have shown in 1900 an indicated cost of production in the neighborhood of 19 cents per square foot. Since that time the cost of the material may have increased by perhaps 1 cent per square foot as an extreme statement. The manufacturers claim that the labor cost has also increased, but we believe that we have completely disproved this statement. We have also disposed of the contention regarding the alleged discrimination in freights and of the theory that the foreign manufacturer habitually uses this market as å "dumping" ground. We have further shown a probable very great decrease in cost due to the influence of an invention that was described as revolutionary when introduced and that, whatever may be the exact saving effected by it, has been at any rate of sufficient merit to induce all the new factories built since 1900 to equip with it and all the old ones to discard their old equipment at great expense and install the new equipment, and this would undoubtedly not have been the case if the saving were only a cent or two per foot.

We believe that we have shown that the cost of polished plate glass at the present day can not be over an average of about 17 or 18 cents per square foot at the very outside, against a foreign cost of 14 cents, according to the American manufacturers, or 16 cents according to our own information. Therefore the tariff, if the flat rate applying to all sizes is adopted (which we sincerely trust will not be the case), should not exceed 4 to 5 cents per square foot.

The schedule we propose works out for the last five years, 1903 to 1907, inclusive, at a trifle over 75 cents per square foot on the glass actually imported during that period. Our proposition is therefore not unjust to the American manufacturer and would not necessarily cause the importation of another dollar's worth of glass excepting that we think that the lowering of the cost of mirror plates will stimulate consumption, but our proposition would do what it is designed to do; that is, to enable the domestic manufacturer to supply the great bulk of the American consumption in plate glass and besides that would prevent the manufacturers here, either individually or in combination, from collecting extortionate profits. We do not ask that the European manufacturers be permitted easy access to this market, but submit that in the interest of the consumer it is not desirable that foreign competition be absoluely barred.

Taking up common window glass (par. 101), a very brief statement will be sufficient. Mr. Faulkner himself demonstrates in his statement that the tariff and the phases of the moon have about equal influence upon the prosperity of the window-glass workers in this country.

The fact is that this industry is in a transition stage from the timehonored hand production to mechanical production. The hand worker is, to put it plainly, undergoing elimination, and although the machine product is not yet perfected by any means and probably

will not be for a number of years, so that there will undoubtedly be more or less handmade glass produced in the United States for some time to come, the machine-made glass is nevertheless good enough for a great part of the requirements, and is so very much cheaper than the handmade glass that it is slowly but surely driving the latter out of existence.

That the window-glass workers of the country are in a deplorable condition is undeniable. They are undergoing the same fate that overtook the hand weavers of fifty or sixty years ago, and that has overtaken every skilled manual trade when machinery capable of replacing it has been invented; but, at any rate, the tariff has had nothing whatever to do with the matter.

Mr. Faulkner further recommends an advance in the tariff on small sizes, saying: "For the purpose of creating a market in this country for an additional half million boxes of window glass annually of poor sizes and qualities that is now being made abroad and 'dumped' upon the American market and which could and should be made by American workmen."

There never was more perfect nonsense written. Excepting that sometimes during a strike period or during the summer shut down of the factories a little foreign glass for glazing purposes creeps in, we would venture the statement that practically all the importations of sheet glass are of special qualities or thickness not manufactured in this country.

In 1907, for instance, the importations of colored and otherwise ornamented sheet glass were 939,229 pounds, nearly all of this being colored glass. This product is not made in this country at all and never has been. The importations of ordinary sheet glass were 31,185,759 pounds, or about 500,000 boxes of 50 square feet each. The domestic production of common window glass as far back as 1905 was nearly 5,000,000 boxes and is now estimated at nearly 6,000,000 boxes, so that the importations only amount to about 8 or 9 per cent of the consumption at the very outside.

The importations were valued at an average of nearly $2 per box at Antwerp without any duty at all, which is much greater than the average value of American glass at the present time.

Of the 31,000,000 pounds imported, about 9,000,000 pounds were in dry-plate glass. We can not give absolutely exact figures, but have before us statements of a number of dry-plate manufacturers certifying that the importations during the period July 1, 1907, to June 30, 1908, of 103,322 100-foot boxes, which would amount to 8,500,000 pounds alone, and there are other importations of dry-plate glass that we know of, but of which we can not ascertain the exact amount, that would easily bring the total up to the figures stated. However, this can easily be settled from the government records, as dry-plate glass is mainly imported through the customs districts of Vermont, Genesee, and St. Louis, very little of anything but dryplate glass paying duty within these districts.

Dry-plate glass is not made in the United States and never has been. During strike seasons, or on similar occasions when supplies have been unobtainable abroad, we would venture the statement that there is not an American dry-plate manufacturer who has not tried to

procure his glass supplies in this country and that has not repeatedly offered all kinds of inducements for the American glass manufacturer to make this particular variety of glass. Right at the present moment every encouragement would be offered to the American glass manufacturer who would care to undertake it. Being under the necessity of procuring their supplies abroad, most of the dry-plate manufacturers at the present time are compelled to carry almost a year's stock on hand, which they would be very glad to avoid by securing their supplies in this country.

At least another 10,000,000 pounds of the importations are in highquality picture glass. Our own importations alone in this glass are upward of 1,000,000 pounds, and we are only one of a couple of dozen good-sized importers. Picture glass of the quality imported can not be had in this country. We ourselves would prefer to buy the glass here rather than carry the large stock it is necessary to carry in the imported glass, and have frequently given an American manufacturer carte blanche to go ahead and turn out the proper quality regardless of price, but have never yet succeeded in finding any domestic supplies that would satisfy the demands of our trade.

The above two itens alone account for two-thirds of the importation. In addition, there are numerous other imported specialties, such as lantern slide glass, clear fluted glass, white muflled glass for art glass workers' use, etc., none of which grades are manufactured in the United States.

In fact, the amount of importation that could under any circumstances compete directly with the American glass is not more than 75,000 or possibly 100,000 boxes a year. This importation is sometimes increased a trifle by a strike here or other cause by reason of which there is a scarcity of American glass, but the importations of this sort are never more than a trifle as compared with the total consumption.

As far as the effect on the American sheet-glass manufacturer and workman is concerned, it does not matter very much what is done with this paragraph at the present moment. We ask the reduction simply because the present schedule is, under present conditions, outrageously high, and tariffs are only revised at intervals of a decade or so. Our principal concern is that some one of the numerous processes for making the glass by machine may ultimately triumph completely over its competitors or combine with them, eliminate the hand-making factories completely, then behind a tariff amounting to several times their own cost of production proceed to collect a price from the consumer that can hardly be realized.

In the course of the testimony taken at the preliminary hearings the plate-glass manufacturers made a number of statements that it is desirable to controvert.

A brief review and criticism will be found herein.

Mr. Clause remarks: "No doubt there will be a serious protest against our proposal from the consumers of small glass, but by what application of the square deal should they expect or demand that they should have their requirements supplied at a dead loss to the pro

ducer?"

Even granting the manufacturers' statement, by what application of the square deal should the consumer be shut out from the cheapest market by 250 per cent protection?

Mr. Clause states: "In this connection it is interesting to note the effect that the Dingley tariff has had upon the importation of German looking-glass plates. These formerly came into the country for the most part silvered, but since the passage of the Dingley Act they have practically all come in under paragraph 102 as unsilvered plates and have been silvered in this country, because of the very much lower rate of duty imposed under this paragraph. This shows beyond question that the duty should be raised proportionately to correspond with the duty on silvered plates."

The design of the Dingley tariff was to force the silvering to be done here, and was successful. The material itself is described in the tariff act as cylinder or crown glass polished (par. 102); this glass is not produced in the United States and never has been.

Mr. Underwood asked: "In a foot of glass in your mill, which costs 32 cents, how much of that is wages, how much is charged against that foot of glass for interest or for betterments, machinery, improvements, and charges? In other words, how much of it is wage and other charges?" Mr. Clause replied: "This is going very much more into detail than I could give you from such records as I have with me * * * we make no statement which shows exactly the kind of analysis that you are mentioning."

It would seem to be proper for one asking for double his present tariff protection, on the average, of the glass actually imported in the United States to be better armed than with a general statement of cost without details.

Mr. Clause states: "The original capital was $10,000,000, without water. There was no water then and there never has been any water in the stock of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company."

This statement is partially correct-in fact, we are free to say that the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company has been managed on a much more sound and honorable basis than has been the case with many large industrial corporations. However, when the company was incorporated in 1895, it could hardly be described as possessing property to the amount of its $10.000.000 capitalization. This $10,000,000 undoubtedly had been expended on the various manufacturing plants included in the combination, but, as Mr. Hitchcock explained in his testimony, there was an enormous amount of money spent in experiments in the early stages of plate-glass manufacture, and the various plants of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company that were acquired at that time were actually worth not much more than one-half the capitalization-in fact, if we recollect correctly, the stock for a considerable period sold for around 30.

Mr. Clause further stated: "We have made two increases of capital in cash actually paid in, * * * practically all of it is represented by other interests of the company outside of the manufacture of plate glass."

We quote from the annual statement of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, February, 1906.

The proceeeds of the $5,000,000 common stock which is offered at par will be used in providing for the manufacturing of all products handled by the warehouses of the company, and for the erection of a large plate-glass factory at Crystal City, Mo.

Mr. Clause states that the "Belgian Government, as well as the German, encouraged their enterprises to improve their several kinds of business, and also to make trade arrangements that enabled them to get higher prices, and to do a profitable business. That enables them to keep prices nearer the prices of those markets where they have a profitable market, and it enables them to dump their surplus product on the American market."

We now quote from the document issued by the Belgian Government regarding glass manufacture:

In 1900 there existed a syndicate of sales embracing the Belgian, the German, the French, and the Italian factories; this syndicate lasted only ten months. From 1901 to 1904 the constant augmentation of production and the competition which the establishments carried on against each other led to a decrease in prices which reached as far as 3 francs upon an average value of the square

meter.

This is a very strange state of affairs. It will be noticed from the government publication on imports and duties, that, generally speaking, foreign prices declined from 1900 to 1904, and advanced from 1904 to date; that is, the formation of the syndicate effected a result directly contradicting Mr. Clause. The low prices to the American market were made when open competition existed in Belgium, and the formation of the syndicate has resulted in higher, and not lower, export prices-in fact, as shown by the record of importations, the formation of the Belgian syndicate has been of distinct advantage to the American plate-glass manufacturers.

The chairman asked: "What portion of your output does not exceed 5 square feet in area of plate glass?"

Mr. Clause replied: "I should say in the neighborhood of 35 per cent."

This gives us a line on the proposition. The production in the United States is about 40,000,000 square feet. Thirty-five per cent of this is 14,000,000 square feet under 5 square feet in area. The importation in 1907 of sizes under 5 square feet in area was 6.000.000 square feet, making a total consumption in the United States of these sizes of 20,000,000 square feet.

The average advance in duty by adopting the schedule proposed by the plate-glass manufacturers will be 13 cents per square foot, which, on 20,000,000 square feet, is equal to $2,700,000. The only possible benefit to the United States by advancing the duty would be to get 6,000,000 square feet of glass, of a total value of $1,150.000, made in this country, for which it is proposed to give the manufacturers the opportunity of collecting an additional tax from the consumer of $2,700,000, besides depriving the Government of the revenue derived from the present importations.

Mr. Hitchcock says: "Let me further state, in contradiction of the rumor which has gained circulation from time to time, that there is no combination or trust in restraint of trade, so far as I know, among the American producers of plate glass, but, on the contrary, the requirements of the Sherman antitrust law are being complied with in every particular."

Documents marked C attached hereto and used in connection with a foregoing paragraph are sufficient answer to this claim. As remarked in our original statement, the existence of a combination. among the manufacturers could probably not be legally proven at