of the tariff act of 1897 as will not only continue to afford us a just and equitable protection against foreign mirror competition, but also a protection against a possible monopoly on the part of the American plate-glass manufacturers, which would be feasible under an increase of present rates, or under such a change or classification of the import duties on plate glass, which would establish a flat duty at a high and inconsistent rate. We favor the elimination of the present bracket schedule and the establishment instead of a 1 to 12 bracket and an over 12 square feet bracket, making only two brackets in all. Under a flat rate of duty at 224 cents per square foot, importations, especially in sizes up to 5 square feet, now covered by the two smaller brackets, and which constituted 86 per cent of the entire importation in 1907, would practically cease, and the government revenue from import plate glass would after a short period be materially reduced or almost entirely cut off. The contention of the American plate-glass manufacturers that they are not amply protected on the two smaller bracket sizes, now dutiable at 8 and 10 cents per square foot, is undoubtedly true, but the extraordinary high rates on the two larger bracket sizes, now dutiable at 22 and 35 cents per square foot, has more than offset the inadequate rates of protection, and of which they have seldom been able to take full advantage. We, however, agree with the plate-glass manufacturers that the present bracket schedule (which dates back as far as the tariff of 1883, when the plate-glass industry in this country was in its infancy, and when polished cylinder and crown glass was extensively used and represented a large proportion of the importations) is now and has long since been an improper classification for plate glass, and it has created a condition which makes the comparative selling prices of plates in the different bracket sizes at unjust and inequitable rates, which under the duty we recommend would be materially corrected and plate glass would then be sold on a much more honest and staple basis. We recommend the establishment of an import duty on the following basis, to wit, plate glass from 1 to 12 square feet, 15 cents per square foot; over 12 square feet, 30 cents per square foot. This, in our judgment, will fully protect the American plate-glass manufacturers against any and all fower cost conditions in Europe, and at which rate a fair and honest competition can still be maintained on the high grades of plate glass used for mirror purposes, which represent our raw material and which the American manufacturers have not as yet been able to produce or furnish in sufficient quantities to meet the demands in this country and which quality or grades of plate glass has during the past eight or ten years represented almost the entire importations from Europe. Furthermore, the duty we recommend at the above-mentioned rate would be fair and just to all interests, including the public, and an equitable revision of the glass schedule, which would also not interfere or effect the government revenues now being derived from import plate glass, as any possible reduction in volume would be offset by the increased rates on the now two lower bracket sizes, which in the year 1907 represented 86 per cent of all the importations. In connection with the above, and in the event the duty we recommend on polished plate glass is favorably considered, it must of necessity carry with it a corresponding change in paragraph 102, covering cylinder and crown glass, polished, and paragraph 105, covering cast polished plate silvered, cylinder and crown glass silvered, and lookingglass plates, and part of paragraph 112, covering mirrors not over 144 square inches, with paragraphs 106 and 107 left unchanged. Trusting this petition will receive careful consideration, we are Yours, respectfully, J. B. MASSON & CO. MIRROR WORKS, LOUISVILLE SILVERING AND BEVELING CO., By C. GEORGEL, Proprietor. BILLS MIRROR PLATE Co., By H. E. BILLS, Manager. FALLS CITY MIRROR WORKS, By J. L. STAIB, President. NATIONAL MIRROR AND SAND BLASTING CO., By FRED BURGE, President and Treasurer. W. L. KANN, FOR COMMITTEE OF PLATE GLASS MANUFACTURERS, FILES PETITIONS OF PLATE GLASS JOBBERS. Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, PITTSBURG, PA., March 9, 1909. Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: We beg to hand you herewith the petitions of various prominent plate glass jobbers of the United States, which have been forwarded to me with the request that they should be sent to you. Will you kindly give them consideration and have acknowledgment made of the receipt of same to me, and advise whether or not same will appear as a portion of the printed record, and oblige. Sincerely yours, W. L. KANN, By COMMITTEE OF PLATE GLASS MANUFACTURERS. 230 to 240 SOUTH THIRTIETH STREET, Philadelphia, March 5, 1909. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: Because of the present discussion of a change in tariff on plate glass, the undersigned, being among the largest jobbers of plate glass in the United States, feel that you might wish to hear from us on the subject. We believe firmly in protection to American industries. A flat rate of tariff will in no way interfere with the transaction of our business nor will it place any burden unjustly on the consumer, but, on the other hand, will enable the manufacturer to supply plate glass in quantities and sizes as required by the country. They have always claimed that they could not furnish the small sizes, except at a great loss, under the Dingley tariff. We are familiar enough with the process of manufacture to realize that a flat cost is the only kind that can be figured and, therefore, a flat rate of duty to take care of the difference between cost of manufacture in this country and abroad, plus a reasonable profit, should be the proper solution. Respectfully submitted. HIRES TURNER GLASS COMPANY, Petitions similar to the above were received from the following: Forman, Ford & Co., Minneapolis, Minn., A. E. Clenhem, vicepresident; Stewart Carey Glass Co., J. N. Carey, president, Indianapolis, Ind.; Campbell Glass and Paint Co., A. N. Neilson, vicepresident; Condie-Neale Glass Co., H. D. Condie, president; West St. Louis Glass Co., D. J. Murnam, president; M. Kahn Glass Co., Milton Kahn, president; Hadley Dean Glass Co., L. G. Hadley, president, all of St. Louis. THE PITTSBURG, PA., PLATE GLASS COMPANY FILES SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN ANSWER TO STATEMENTS MADE. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, PITTSBURG, PA., March 9, 1909. Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: We note that Semon Bache & Co. have filed another brief with you relative to our request for proper protection in the proposed bill under consideration by your committee. They seem to think that argument and arithmetic are all that is involved or necessary (quite irrespective of whether they are based on fact or on mere assumed knowledge of conditions). This, however, is not a question of argument or arithmetic, but a simple question of facts, and we have given you nothing else. If these facts show ignorance on their part, it is well to bear in mind that they admitted when personally before your committee that they have never been engaged in the manufacture of plate glass and know nothing about it. The burden of their last brief seems to hinge principally on two matters. First, the German tariff, concerning which Semon Bache & Co. offer no information or argument which in any wise weakens the prime fact, that the German tariff is conceded to have been one of the most carefully and scientifically constructed tariffs that has ever been enacted, and that this tariff does grant the German manufacturers a flat rate of $0.1242 per square foot protection on all sizes, irrespective of area. The fact that some of the works in Germany were built by French and Belgian capitalists emphasizes the fair and liberal attitude of the German Government toward those engaged in the industry; and it also shows that their tariff has worked to the benefit of the country, because it compelled the St. Roch Company to build a works in Germany in order to hold that market. Had it not been for the German tariff, I take it, that the Belgian companies would have manufactured this glass at home and exported it to Germany. This is just what Semon Bache & Co. would like to have the foreign manufacturers do with regard to the American market. They would like to have the duty put down so low that American factories could be thrown out of business and the American market supplied with foreign glass, thereby increasing their business as importers, out of which they have made millions. It is a significant fact that, notwithstanding their wealth and their arguments about the large profits they claim have been made by the American manufacturers, they have never invested a dollar in the industry, although they have been invited to do so repeatedly. The rates of duty they suggest, if applied to the imports of the last few years, would only have yielded a revenue equal to half the protection afforded by the German Government, and with the much higher rates of wages and cost of production in this country than exist in Germany, we certainly ought to receive much higher protection under the proposed new tariff than Germany provides. Their statement that they "stand firmly upon the Republican platform of 1908" is manifestly insincere. The very heavy imports of plate glass under 5 square feet are unmistakable evidence that the present duty is too low and does not measure the difference in cost between domestic and foreign cost, let alone the promised margin of profit; and yet they propose a reduction of 50 per cent. It is easy to see where their interests as importers stand. The second point that seems to give them special concern is the fact that we have tried to make it plain to you in our last brief that they knew better than to lay before you arguments based upon a supposed selling price for the year 1900 of 30 cents per square foot. To justify their error, they go into an elaborate argument and calculation covering a page and a half, which closes with the statement that We adhere to our opinion that the selling price as stated in the census of 1900 is correct. Here again it is not a question of argument and arithmetic; it is a question of fact, and we stated that fact in our previous brief when we said that this company received for its factory product during the year 1900 $0.3877 per square foot, and just to show you that they know better and that they are trying to mislead, we quote the factory stock sheet and cut-size prices that were current in the year 1900: The cut sizes were f. o. b. factory; the stock sizes were less freight, which would mean a deduction of from 1 to 2 cents per square foot on stock sheets, according to the location of the factory making ship ment. A most casual examination of these prices, even without any arithmetic, is enough to convince anyone except Semon Bache & Co., who, by reason of their long connection with the business, know it to be true that these prices would of necessity yield a much higher average price than 30 cents. Of course their purpose in claiming that 30 cents was the selling price is to sustain their erroneous contention that the cost of production is lower than it actually is. Inasmuch, therefore, as their facts and arithmetic are both wrong, the whole chain of argument by which they reach their conclusions is fallacious. As additional proof on the same subject, if it be necessary, we quote from their brief: In the first place, the thirteen million odd feet at Mr. Clause's alleged selling price of $0.3877 per square foot figure a total of $5,287,121. The census of 1900 gives the total value of the 16,883,578 square feet produced in the United States in that year as $5,158,598, which is considerably less than Mr. Clause's statement of the value of the Pittsburg Plate Glass Company's production alone. Inasmuch as our sales actually amounted to $5,287,362.50, this conclusively proves that the total value of the total American production taken from the census had reference to cost of production and not to sales. As to their paragraph with regard to the profits of our jobbing business for the year 1900, which they compare with their own profits (without giving any figures), I wish to say that, while their concern has been in business for a very long period, there was an interim, of which the year 1900 was a part, during which they were not extensively engaged in the handling of plate glass as jobbers. In fact, if we are correctly informed, their jobbing business in plate glass during that year was very small. Hence a comparison of their business for that year is not relevant, and we venture the statement that, so far as the jobbers of the United States who handle American plate glass extensively are concerned, there has been no year within the last twelve or fifteen years when they, as a whole, have done such a profitable business in plate glass as was done that year. It was also a very profitable year for the jobbing of American window glass, which contributed to our profits-three of our leading warehouses alone making over $150,000 in jobbing art and window glass-but in which Semon Bache & Co. did not participate, as they have preferred to import and handle foreign window glass, as well as plate glass. Their attitude has always been hostile to the American industry, because on the whole they have found their policy immensely profitable in the long run. We do not think our results were at all out of line with the profits made proportionately by other well-managed jobbing houses for the same favorable period, and attach hereto, marked "Exhibit A," an affidavit from Messrs. Tyler & Hippach (one of several prominent jobbers in Chicago), showing that they made $82,269.04 that year, which is proportionately quite as much as our warehouses made that year (1900). Unfortunately, however, other years, as a rule, have been very much less satisfactory. The cost given by us when before your committee in November, 1908, covered the seven years immediately preceding, and is corroborated by the statements and brief field with you February 11, 1909, and signed by all the other manufacturers individually. The cost for 1908 could not be included because the year had not expired. Our cost for the year 1908 was $0.2871 per square foot, as actually |