Chicago, Ill.. Cincinnati, Ohio. Cleveland, Ohio Columbus, Ohio Dayton, Ohio Rockford, Ill. First. Second. Third. Fourth. $1.24 $1.04 .66 76 42 Less than carload, $2.20. Carload, $1.50. The above are class rates applying on plate glass from Alexandria, Freight rates in classes, December 2, 1908. PLATE GLASS-W. J. VANCE ET AL. Freight rates in classes, December 2, 1908-Continued. From Blairsville, Pa., to Richmond, Va. Rockford, Ill.. Grand Rapids, Mich. 1211 Chicago, Ill. Buffalo, N. Y. Cincinnati, Ohio. Cleveland, Ohio.. Columbus, Ohio.. Dayton, Ohio.. Saginaw, Mich.. .65 .50% .44 .31 Rockford, IL Quincy, Il. Newport News, Va.. Less than carload, $2.20. Above are class rates applying on plate glass from Toledo, Ohio, Freight rates in classes, December 7, 1908-Continued. From Ottawa, Ill., to Indianapolis, Ind. Rockford, .. Quincy, I Newport News, Va.. Less than carload, $2.20. Above are the class rates applying on plate glass from Ottawa, Ill., to points shown. Above are class rates applying on plate glass from Saginaw, Mich., to points shown. THE PITTSBURG PLATE GLASS COMPANY FILES SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REPLYING TO H. E. MILES. Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, PITTSBURG, PA., December 17, 1908. Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C. HONORED SIR: We ask permission to file this additional brief in reply to the statements made by Mr. H. E. Miles before your committee on December 8. Mr. Miles states: I beg to pay my compliments to him (the president of the Pittsburg Plate Glass Company) 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. In reply to this, we wish to say that we fully agree with Mr. Miles that the present schedule is unfair, and we have always so maintained since the organization of the present company, for the reasons fully set forth in our previous brief. The duty on large glass is too high and the duty on small glass is too low; but as to the charge of robbing the people, we simply wish to again set forth the fact that during the entire history of the present company, since 1895, we have paid our stockholders dividends which average for the period a trifle less than 41 per cent per annum, and have built up a surplus averaging about 31 per cent per annum for the same period, and that these earnings have come largely from auxiliary sources. In order to make the meager earnings above shown we have not taken any cognizance of our several million dollars of surplus, upon which we had no returnnot even simple interest. Our profits on the manufacture of plate glass, divorced from these auxiliary sources, have for the last seven years averaged barely 1 per cent per annum. There is no inflation (water) in our stock, so there has been no attempt to pay dividends. on water. On the contrary, our stockholders have paid in $7,500,000 additional capital in cash since 1902 in order to carry on our business successfully. Our most important auxiliary sources of revenue embrace the best coal and gas properties in western Pennsylvania; our branch warehouse system; our interest in the Patton Paint Company, which has always made much larger earnings than the Pittsburg Plate Glass Company; our Belgian plate-glass plant, which has been very profitable, and various other investments. In this connection we wish also to state that we have always charged glass to our warehouses at as nearly the average prices current by other manufacturers to the jobbing trade as could be determined, with the purpose that our branch warehouse system should stand entirely upon its own merits; and also with the purpose of determining whether the policy of distributing our own product should be continued or abandoned. In fact, it has always been the policy of the company that all its auxiliary interests should and must stand upon their own merit. Mr. Miles says, in comparing European with American labor, that the latter "labor is 50 to 70 per cent higher." The truth is that we actually pay fully 300 per cent higher wages in this country than we do at our Belgian works. He says: They added 100 per cent to their selling prices in two years' time, giving onesixth of the advance to their laborers and five-sixths to their stockholders. The truth is, that our labor has always received full American standard of wages. The wages paid by this company have followed the general wage conditions and not the market fluctuations of our product. As against this, our manufacturing department has barely earned 1 per cent per annum on actual capital invested in plants. It it not difficult to perceive what results would have followed a more liberal division to labor. He states that 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 two dollars for every dollar's worth of glass he bought. The truth is, that taking the last seven years, 1901 to 1907, both inclusive (I select these years because they cover the period in which the large increase in imports has taken place), our cost of manufacturing glass was .3265 per square foot, whereas the cost in Belgium for the same period, based upon the cost at our own works, which we have owned for a part of that time, and from the best information we can obtain from our Belgian superintendent, who has been connected with other concerns as well as our own, and from other sources, is about 14 per square foot. We note that Mr. Goertner, representing the foreign importers, who testified before you, stated that the foreign cost was .16. We do not think he is in position to get accurate information about it, but, in any event, his statement does not differ materially from ours. With the above facts as to cost of production and the actual earnings that have been made, you can easily arrive at the proper conclusion as to how correct Mr. Miles is in his statement that we have forced the consumer to pay $2 for every dollar's worth of glass he has bought. Or, to reverse the statement, you can easily see what would have happened to the American plate-glass industry if we had sold our product at one-half the prices that have prevailed during our history. He says: They raised their prices so high that importers were able to pay the excessive tariff and bring plate glass in to advantage. We suppose he means that you should infer from this that that accounts for the enormous imports that have come in under the Dingley bill. The truth of the matter is that these imports are made up principally of sizes under 5 square feet (under 24 by 30 inches), upon which the duty is so low that the foreigners have not only been able to sell this enormous quantity of glass, but force us to sell all that we have sold, which has been even a larger quantity, at a heavy loss to ourselves. So far as the above quotation might refer to large glass, the present form of tariff naturally compels the American manufacturer, in some measure, to attempt to do this very thing, i. e., to ask a high price on glass over 10 square feet to make good the loss he is constantly sustaining on small glass. The flat-rate tariff that we propose would remove not only this necessity but the opportunity for so doing. |