for what small proportion of the business was desirable in its char acter. He further says: 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 small sizes being only cuttings or salvage from defective or broken large sheets, wherein the profit lies. If we were only compelled to sell as small sizes such small glass as results" only from cuttings or salvage," there would be some opportunity to do some of the things which he charges, but since the natural production of small sizes under 10 square feet (24 by 60 inches) is only about 25 per cent, whereas the actual consumption has grown until it is about two-thirds of the whole, you can see that he entirely misrepresents the real facts, because about 40 per cent of the consumption has to be cut out of large glass with heavy attendant losses. In conclusion, I wish to call your attention to Mr. Miles's statement with regard to what he thinks he is entitled to in his own business. Mr. Clark asked: Do they [referring to people in Mr. Miles's line of business], in aiming at 15 per cent, sometimes make 25 per cent? Mr. MILES. Back in the days of competition I made 30 per cent, buying my steel in the open market. Well, 30 per cent is too high. I made it on the book assets, but I made 20 per cent easily right along, and now that the trusts have put my costs up I make next to nothing. And when Mr. Clark made a more definite inquiry as to "what is a reasonable profit," Mr. Miles said: Why, 15 per cent per annum would be right good in our trade. And yet because we have paid our stockholders an average of 4 per cent and laid by a surplus averaging about 33 per cent per annum, practically all of which, however, has been made from auxiliary sources, while out of the actual manufacture of plate glass we have made little or nothing, Mr. Miles regards us as having robbed the public, and charges the former Ways and Means Committee of having left the public wholly at our mercy. It would be interesting to know when he was making 30 per cent how he regarded himself. All of which is respectfully submitted. PITTSBURG PLATE GLASS COMPANY, By W. L. CLAUSE, President. STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, County of Allegheny, ss: I, W. L. Clause, of Pittsburg, Pa., president of the Pittsburg Plate Glass Company, being duly sworn according to law, do depose and say that the statements made in the foregoing brief, which pertain to the business of the said Pittsburg Plate Glass Company, are true, and that all other statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. W. L. CLAUSE. Sworn and subscribed before me, a notary public, this 18th day of December, A. D. 1908. [SEAL.] My commission expires February 26, 1909. L. A. BAILEY, Notary Public. HON. E. B. VREELAND, M. C., SUBMITS MEMORIAL OF THE INTERSTATE FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, ASKING REDUCTION IN DUTY ON PLATE GLASS. JAMESTOWN, N. Y., December 23, 1908. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: We, the members of the Interstate Furniture Manufacturers' Association, in meeting assembled, do most respectfully represent to your honorable body that the schedule of tariff on plate glass in the Dingley bill is excessive, and we would recommend the following schedule: It is the sense of this body that this schedule amply covers the difference in the cost of production in this and foreign countries, and we further believe that the domestic factories are amply strong and well enough established to successfully compete with the foreign manufacturers, if the domestic manufacturer is protected by a tariff equal to the difference in the cost of production here and abroad. Respectfully submitted. F. M. KNAPP, Committee of the Interstate Furniture Manufacturers' Association. POLISHED PLATE GLASS. [Paragraphs 104-107.] HUGH LYONS, LANSING, MICH., THINKS THAT THE DUTIES ON POLISHED PLATE GLASS ARE TOO HIGH. Hon. S. E. PAYNE, LANSING, MICH., November 20, 1908. Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: When you take up the cast polished plate-glass schedule in revision of the tariff, the following facts might be of some interest: While the schedule as listed looks to be reasonable and low when you consider the list price of glass listed by the various manufacturers, however, in taking into consideration that there is always a discount ranging from 75 to 90 per cent from said list, it will be apparent that the tariff list is unreasonable. The first item of 16 to 24 inches or under should not be considered, as there is but very little of these extreme small sizes used, and as they are to a certain extent waste or by-products, glass manufacturers of this country, and in fact in all countries, are always extremely anxious to dispose of the small sizes at extremely low prices. It will be evident to your committee that the last two brackets, viz, 24 by 60 inches, and all above that on which the duty is 223 and 35 cents per square foot, respectively, comprise 90 per cent of the volume of glass consumed in the United States; therefore it is fair to place the average duty at about 25 cents per square foot on glass imported, or the sizes used in this country. In the last ten years the wholesale price of glass has fluctuated from 70 and 7 to 90 per cent off the list, making nearly 200 per cent fluctuation, while, on the other hand, the price of materials used in the manufacture of plate glass and labor employed therein has not fluctuated during the last ten years to exceed 50 per cent.. There are now, we believe, in this country engaged in the manufacture of plate glass some 19 or 20 factories enough to supply all the demand of the trade at the present demand. About half of these factories are owned by one company. The other half, or so-called "independent," invariably take their prices, and, we might say, are ruled exclusively by the company owning half of these plants. The manufacturers using plate glass as a part of their raw material number up into the thousands. It is safe to place the number of these manufacturers in the United States who use plate glass as their raw material at 4,000 or 5,000. It will therefore readily appeal to you that the fluctuation, amounting nearly to 200 per cent on plate glass, is demoralizing to these four or five thousand manufacturers. The average price of producing plate glass in Belgium and other foreign countries is 17 cents per foot for all sizes. The average cost of production in the United States is about 22 cents for all sizes. Therefore it will be apparent to you that there is 5 cents a foot difference in cost of production, and it occurs to the writer an average of 8 cents per square foot duty on price of plate glass would give ample protection to the manufacturers in this country. In all probability it will be argued in favor of leaving the plateglass list schedule alone. Glass is now selling at a reasonable price, and, in fact, as cheap as it can be sold at a profit to the manufacturers. This the writer will concede. However, once that it becomes apparent that there is to be no change in the plate-glass schedule, it is the writer's opinion that plate glass will take a wonderful jump in price. We might say, in conclusion, that the writer is a protectionist, and is willing to concede ample protection to glass manufacturers. However, he believes that even a good thing may be overdone. Respectfully, yours, HUGH LYONS. THE DAYTON (OHIO) ART GLASS WORKS THINKS THAT THE DUTIES ON SMALL SIZES OF POLISHED PLATE GLASS SHOULD NOT BE INCREASED. DAYTON, OHIO, December 1, 1908. WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: Noticing that you are considering the revision of the tariff on polished plate glass, we beg to state that it is very important that the duty on this material in small sizes should not be increased. The adoption of a uniform flat rate on all sizes would certainly mean great harm to all mirror manufacturers that do not manufacture their own glass. Most of the mirrors made are under 5 feet square, and if you would increase the tariff on these sizes it would not only hurt the manufacturers but also the public at large would suffer. It is hard enough, under present conditions, to get suitable glass for silvering under 5 feet square, as the plate-glass manufacturers have always" contracted" for these sizes. In fact, most of them have their own beveling and silvering plants. We wish to state, therefore, that the slightest increase in the tariff on these smaller sizes would mean the destruction of thousands of small and medium sized mirror manufacturers throughout the United States. Yours, very truly, DAYTON ART GLASS WORKS, N. WIEDERER & CO., NEW YORK CITY, WRITE RELATIVE TO SILVERED AND UNSILVERED CAST POLISHED PLATE. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, NEW YORK, December 23, 1908. Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: I beg to call your attention to the wide difference in the tariff on silvered and unsilvered cast polished plate glass. For example, cast polished plate glass not exceeding 16 by 24 inches 5 cents per square foot and 10 per cent ad valorem, as against 45 per cent on mirrors, would work out as follows: Entered value, 16 by 24 unsilvered plate.. 23 square feet, at 5 cents.. 10 per cent ad valorem.. Total cost.... Entered value silvered plate, same size.... Or a difference of nearly 25 per cent. $1.20 .13 .12 1.45 1.33 .60 1.93 As the cost of silvering is but 5 cents per square foot, the greater part of which is for actual silver used, there is obviously no benefit accruing to the American workman in having the silvering only done in this country; on the contrary, it entails a great deal of unnecessary handling and repacking, none of which improves the quality, but adds an unnecessary item of cost to the consumer. As the total cost of silvering a 16 by 24 plate is but 13 cents, of which sum only 4 cents represents labor, the balance being for actual materials used, we fail to see any logical reason why silvered glass should be subject to such an excessive rate as compared to unsilvered glass. Especially so does this apply to silvered "schock" or window glass, as this cheap glass, used by the masses exclusively, is taxed at the same rate as plate glass when imported silvered, viz, 45 per cent; whereas when imported unsilvered the same glass is taxed at only 13 cents per pound. As we import small unmounted or unframed mirrors exclusively, and as these are used by manufacturers of toilet articles and hand mirrors, the only result is that the manufacturer pays an excessive price, which he adds to cost, and the burden eventually rests on the consumer. A duty of 45 per cent may well be applied to framed mirrors, as the glass value in almost all cases is relatively but to % of the finished or framed article; but unmounted mirrors up to about 6 by 6 inches should not be taxed at such an excessive rate as 45 per cent. Diamonds unset or unmounted pay but 10 per cent, and are not a necessity, whereas a small mirror of some kind is an absolute necessity to every man, woman, and child in the country. Yours, truly, A. A. LANDAU, Representing N. Wiederer & Co., New York City. OPTICAL GOODS. [Paragraphs 108, 109, 110, 111, and 565.] STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. WELLS, OF SOUTHBRIDGE, MASS., ASKING RETENTION OF PRESENT RATES ON OPTICAL GOODS WITH SOME CHANGES IN CLASSIFICATION. TUESDAY, November 24, 1908. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Wells. Mr. WELLS. My name is George W. Wells, and I am president of the American Optical Company, of Southbridge, Mass. I desire to speak briefly with reference to paragraphs 108, 109, 110, and 111, and also paragraph. 565 of the free list. My company is engaged in the manufacture of optieal goods, such as spectacles, eyeglasses, goggles, test cases, lenses, mountings, and cases for glasses. What we desire is the continuance of paragraphs 108 and 110 of the present law. After changing paragraph 109 to conform to decisions that have been made under it, we would recommend, if the committee please, further changes as follows: First, after the word "cylindrical," strike out the word "or." Second, after the word "prismatic," insert a comma and the words. "toric or other." Mr. COCKRAN. Would you mind spelling that word for me? Mr. WELLS. T-o-r-i-c. Mr. GRIGGS. Would you mind defining that word for me? Mr. WELLS. The definition would be, in my terms, two spherical curves on one surface. If you should take a doorknob and cut a slice off of the side, you would get a toric. Do I make myself clear? Mr. GRIGGS. Thank you. Mr. WELLS. The idea in suggesting this is that there should be no misunderstanding in classifying these glasses, and the word "other is inserted so that later on, as there are likely to be other kinds of lenses than those defined in the old law, this would simplify the classification, and that is our only object. |