manufacturers in times of depression over there or be built up at our expense here. I have discussed with you many times the question of undervaluation, which is a most serious question, and unless the value of goods can be fixed on this side it will be very difficult to make a tariff that will be protective regardless of what it is, especially if President Roosevelt's "reciprocity" plans are to have any weight, which we understand they will not in the future. Sincerely, yours, JOHN HOPEWELL. HON. A. B. CAPRON, M. C., SUBMITS LETTER OF F. C. FLETCHER, BOSTON, MASS., RELATIVE TO THE WOOLEN SCHEDULE. Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, WASHINGTON, D. C., February 23, 1909. Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. DEAR SIR: I beg to inclose a letter from F. C. Fletcher, president of the Pocasset Worsted Company, Boston, Mass., against changing Schedule K of the tariff law, and would particularly call your attention to the last paragraph thereof, and would ask that the letter be considered by your committee. Very truly, yours, A. B. CAPRON. BOSTON, MASS.; February 19, 1909. DEAR SIR: Our mill, the Pocasset Worsted Company, is located in your district, and so I am taking the liberty of writing you my views in regard to Schedule K, which I understand is being much discussed by the Ways and Means Committee with a view toward revision. We are of the opinion that for the best interests of our industry it is necessary that Schedule K should not be changed. The worsted-yarn section, which we are most interested in, can not be changed without allowing importations of worsted yarn, and such importations would be injurious to our business. At the present time it is possible to import worsted yarns from 60's up, and I am importing some at the present time for the purpose of establishing a trade in this country on such yarns. As regards the wool schedule, which, of course, we are dependent on, it is my opinion that it is for the interests of the entire industry that the rate of duty should not be lowered; and I especially believe that the specific duty on wool which is in the present tariff bill should stand. An ad valorem duty, while apparently advantageous if honestly administered, would become a source of danger to the woolen interests if dishonestly administered, and the possibility of fraudulent importation would be so great that it is my opinion that it is not wise to change from specific to ad valorem duty. Also, it would be advantageous if the Ways and Means Committee were impressed by the fact that business is suffering, and will continue to suffer until some definite decision is arrived at; and we are already feeling the effects of inaction in our business, owing to the fear on the part of the people who buy our material that a disastrous result may come from Schedule K being lowered. Very truly, yours, F. C. FLETCHER, President. DRESS GOODS. BRIEF SUBMITTED BY THE FRENCH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF NEW YORK CITY IN BEHALF OF THE IMPORTERS OF FRENCH DRESS GOODS. 32 BROADWAY, New York City, February 27, 1909. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, Washington, D. O. GENTLEMEN: We beg to submit to your honorable body the following remarks: Considering that it seems to be the object of the revision of the present tariff to establish duties representing the difference in the cost of production in this country and abroad and a reasonable profit for the home industry, the importers of French dress goods beg to solicit the suppression of the specific duty and the reduction of the ad valorem duty of 30 per cent on all plain fabrics, cashmere, serges, whip cord, satins; the duty of 40 per cent ad valorem on fancy dress goods, pure wool, and jacquard, and on tissues of combed wool, silk warp; 20 per cent ad valorem on woolen threads up to 5 francs per kilo, and 25 per cent ad valorem above 5 francs per kilo, and in both cases the suppression of the specific duty. Trusting that you will give this matter due consideration, we remain, gentlemen, Very respectfully, THE FRENCH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF NEW YORK. WOOL CARPETS. R. HASSELGREN & CO., CHICAGO, ILL., STATE THAT THE PRESENT TARIFF IS PRACTICALLY PROHIBITIVE ON REGULAR LINES OF WOOL CARPETS. Hon. HENRY S. BOUTELL, M. C., 440 NORTH STATE STREET, Chicago, February 11, 1909. Washington, D. O. DEAR SIR: Replying to your favor of the 8th instant, we are unable to quote manufacturers' costs, not having access to their records, and can only state that in handling wool carpets the present tariff rate is prohibitive on the regular lines, and by this we mean carpets 27 inches wide, costing from 75 cents to $2 per yard. The addition of 60 cents per square yard (making an additional cost of 45 cents to each yard of 27-inch carpet) is most unfair, for where a carpet costs but 50 cents per yard in England and 45 cents is added to it for tariff it is impossible for a dealer to handle this carpet in competition with American-made materials. We often buy carpets which cost from $8 to $30 per square yard, and on this class of material the addition of 60 cents per square yard is unimportant, especially as these fine grades of hand-tufted carpets are not made in America, while on the cheaper lines of carpets, used by millions of the American people, it does seem unfair to place such an unreasonable duty charge on this grade of fabric which unreasonably protects the manufacturer. In revising tariff we would suggest a minimum duty of 10 per cent on 27-inch goods and 25 per cent on the hand-tufted goods. In addition to the duty, dealers are compelled to pay large freight rates from Europe, and the one item of freight rates ought to put the American manufacturer in a position to more than compete with European manufacturers. The American manufacturers of to-day do not make as good a grade of carpeting as the European mills, and we have felt for a number of years that the American manufacturers were unreasonable in their protecting demands. If there is anything further we can do to bring this matter to the attention of the Ways and Means Committee, we shall be glad to do so. Thanking you for your letter, we remain," Very truly, yours, R. HASSELGREN & COMPANY, Per W. C. MOULTON, President. ORIENTAL RUGS. [Paragraph 379.] W. & J. SLOANE, NEW YORK CITY, ARE OPPOSED TO PLACING OF HIGHER DUTIES ON ORIENTAL RUGS. BROADWAY, EIGHTEENTH, AND NINETEENTH STREETS, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, New York, March 5, 1909. Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: As importers of oriental and other foreign rugs for nearly a half century, we venture to submit our views herewith as to the rates of duty that should be imposed upon these articles, and express the hope that your committee will not deem it wise or necessary to increase the present rates, which are 10 cents per square foot, and in addition thereto 40 per cent ad valorem. This compound duty has been the equivalent under the Dingley law of an ad valorem duty of 60.01 per cent. Paragraph 379 of the act of 1897 includes not only oriental rugs, which, strictly speaking, come from China, Japan, India, and the eastern countries of Europe, but also Berlin rugs, which are highpile, hand-tufted rugs made in Germany; also Aubusson and Savonnerie rugs from France, and Chenille, Axminster, and hand-tufted rugs from Great Britain and Ireland. The impression prevails that the importations of these goods amount to very much more than the actual statistics of the Treasury Department show. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1907, the total value of the importations of all kinds of rugs, woven whole for rooms, was only $4,172,734.79, while for the same period it is estimated that the value of all carpets and rugs manufactured in the United States approximated $75,000,000. Thus it will be seen that the importations of rugs amounted to only about 5 per cent of the value of the domestic production. It can not be urged that such a very small percentage of importations presents any serious competition with the home industry. The Treasury statistics show that the unit of value of such, rugs imported during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1907, was $4.50 per square yard, which is a much higher cost than 80 per cent of the carpets and rugs made in the United States. The great majority of manufacturers of carpets and rugs agree that the importations of rugs embraced in paragraph 379 have been a benefit rather than a detriment to the domestic floor-covering business. They have been a fruitful source of supply for designs, patterns, and colorings, which are being constantly copied into American goods, while the artistic and technical merits of the imported goods have done much to educate the public taste and stimulate the demand for higher art in American weaves. The great difference in price between the imported and domestic rugs destroys at once the force of any argument that imported rugs compete with the domestic goods. Each class of goods has its own constituents, and it would be difficult to persuade a customer who was looking for a domestic rug to pay the great difference in price and take an oriental rug. Notwithstanding the comparatively small amount (in value) of these goods imported, it has been urged by some of the domestic manufacturers of the cheaper grades of carpets that the foreign rug displaces the home product. As opposed to this view we quote from the testimony of Robert Dornan, esq., of Philadelphia, Pa., before the Industrial Commission, December 20, 1900, as follows: Mr. CLARK. Do you think that the fashion of hard-wood floors and the use of rugs has had an appreciable influence in diminishing the demand for ingrain carpets? ANSWER. Not appreciably, because the people whose houses have hard-wood floors as a rule are not the people who use ingrain carpets; they use something higher. If the use of the rug displaces any carpet it is not the ingrain. There is not any question but that the added use of rugs is having an effect in displacing higher grade carpets, but it is so slight that it is hardly worthy of attention. The Treasurer's statistics on that point will be an addition to our reply. They show that the increased volume of imports on carpets is very moderate. That includes the oriental rugs, which are perhaps the largest part of the carpet importations. The increase has only been a moderate one, the totals perhaps $1,750,000 in 1899 and about $2,500,000 in 1900. (See report of the Industrial Commission, 1901, vol. 14, p. 315.) It is a significant fact that, without exception, the manufacturers of the highest grades of carpets and rugs in the United States (with which foreign rugs compete, if they compete with anything) are satisfied with the present duties. The rates under the Dingley Act on these goods were an increase over those of the McKinley Act, and represent the highest duty ever imposed upon this class of goods. Statistics show that the importations have not materially increased in the ten years during which the Dingley Act has been in force, the value of the importations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1903, being $3.472,669.50, and that for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1907, being $4,172,734.79, an increase of only 16 per cent during the past four years. While it can not be argued that oriental rugs are among the necessaries of life, yet it can be fairly urged that they serve a very useful purpose, do not displace home manufactures, and at the same time yielded the Government duties for the fiscal year 1907 amounting to $2,503,869.47. The most popular size domestic rug measures 9 by 12 feet and contains 12 square yards. It will be borne in mind that these rugs are all machine made and are woven mostly in breadths and afterwards sewn together in the form of a rug, while the oriental rugs are all handmade, in one piece, and come in sizes much larger than anything that can be produced in this country. It will be remembered that the unit of value of foreign rugs imported during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1907, was $4.50 per square yard. This unit of value was reduced to the low figure of $4.50 per square yard by the large quantity of small pieces selling at retail for from $15 to $30. Had these smaller rugs been eliminated from the computation the unit of value per square yard would not have been less than $10, as the lowest price per square yard at which the larger rugs of the best quality can be imported are as follows: As against these values we quote below the present wholesale prices of the different weaves of domestic rugs, from which it will be seen that the great difference in cost is a more effectual protection to the American manufacturer than any duties, not entirely prohibitive, that could be levied: We are largely interested in the manufacture of domestic carpets and rugs, our sales every year, at wholesale and retail, being many times greater than our sales of imported rugs, yet we have no hesitation whatever in saying that we regard imported rugs, to the extent they are likely to be brought in, a benefit rather than an injury to the floor-covering business. In our opinion, the present duties can not be increased without seriously curtailing the importations of foreign rugs, thereby considerably reducing the revenue the Government is now receiving from this source. The average ad valorem duty under the present law being 60 per cent, a rug costing $1,000 abroad and paying a duty to the Government of $600 is taxed, we think, as much as it should be under a revenue duty. It can not be urged that duties on this class of goods should be protective, as oriental rugs can not be made in this country, and the comparatively small quantity_imported does not constitute a menace to any domestic industry. If, then, the duty on imported rugs is to be regarded in the light of a revenue rather than a protective duty, we would point out to your committee that duties can be placed so high that they cease to produce revenues for the Government by keeping the goods out of the country altogether. We think this would be the case if the duties on imported rugs are increased, and we respectfully urge that paragraph 379 of the Dingley law be reenacted without change. Respectfully submitted. W. & J. SLOANE, By GEO. MONEIR, Vice-President. |