carload quantity is in practically as good a position as the largest jobber in the country. Thanks are due to Mr. Clause for pointing out that his alleged cost of $0.3265 per square foot covers the period from 1901 to 1907. His original statement of November 24, 1908, was so hazy on this subject that we had paid no attention to it. Reaffirming our statement that the average cost of $0.3265 for the years 1901-1907 is absolutely incorrect as a practical matter, and that it can only be reached by a fantastic method of cost figuring, what in the name of common sense has the cost from 1901 to 1907 to do with the problem before your committee, who are not holding an inquest into what the glass tariff should have been during those years, but are to decide as to what it justly shall be in the future? These years, 1901-1907, particularly the earlier part of the period, were those in which manufacturing conditions in the plate glass industry were revolutionized. Mr. Clause may minimize all he likes the practical effect of the improvements in manufacturing processes such as the continuous lehr, etc., but he practically admits them by laying stress upon the enormous expense to which his company has been put in remodeling and improving its plants. In addition to this, their annual statements contain items amounting to millions of dollars to cover depreciation caused by the abandonment of some of their factories, which special depreciation has of course been included in their cost figures. Your committee is legislating probably for ten years to comepossibly for a longer period. Mr. Clause's theory appears to be that during these coming years the public shall pay an annually increasing amount, many times over, for the blunders made by the last generation of plate-glass manufacturers. In concluding the discussion, two vital matters stand out with special prominence. One is the stake the manufacturers are playing for. The production of plate glass in the United States is about 40,000,000 square feet. Thirty-five per cent of this, or about 14,000,000 square feet, are under 5 square feet in area. The importation in 1907, for instance, sizes under 5 square feet in area, was nearly 6,000,000 square feet, making a total consumption in the United States in these sizes of 20,000,000 square feet annually. Using 1907 as an illustration, here is the arithmetic of the proposition: The importations of these small sizes were 5,784,635 square feet, of a foreign value of $1,153,497, from which the Government received revenue amounting to $554,312. Adopt the manufacturers' proposed flat rate of 22 cents per square foot and these importations would practically cease, so that the Government would be deprived of half a million dollars revenue. The average advance in duty on these small sizes if the 223-cent rate were adopted would be 13 cents per square foot, which, on the annual consumption of 20,000,000 square feet in small sizes, is equal to $2,700,000. Therefore the only possible benefit to the United States by advancing the duty would be to get about 6,000,000 square feet of glass, of a total value of $1,150,000, made in this country. For this 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. The other vital fact is that the whole of the manufacturers' argument is based upon a sweeping claim of an average cost of $0.3265 per square foot, no details whatever being given, and even this cost based upon the operations of a very large company with many fields of activity, and even then upon the period from 1901 to 1907. We submit that in view of the demonstrated inconsistencies in Mr. Clause's various statements as shown in his last communication, that it is absolutely essential that the plate-glass manufacturers should be required to prove their case and to produce a detailed statement of cost and subject it to public criticism. Furthermore, we respectfully submit that the operations of a single company are hardly conclusive, particularly a company with so many ramifications as the Pittsburg Plate Glass Company. There are a number of prosperous plate glass manufacturers who, we believe, confine themselves exclusively to the manufacture of plate glass, as for instance, the Heidenkamp Mirror Company (this company does not manufacture any mirrors, in spite of its name), the Edward Ford Plate Glass Company, the Allegheny Plate Glass Company, and the Saginaw Plate Glass Company. A cost arrived at from the operations of any of these companies would in any event be free from complexity. All these companies were established during the period from 1899 to 1902, and their cost in recent years would undoubtedly be a fair guide to actual conditions in the industry. We submit, however, that in any case a detailed cost should be supplied. By this we do not mean that a manufacturer should be asked to disclose any trade secrets, but simply show in reasonable detail the items of which his aggregate cost is composed. We reiterate that we stand firmly upon the Republican platform of 1908. Justice to the manufacturer requires that he be granted protection in accordance with that platform. The manufacturer, however, is asking for protection to an extent apparently five or six times greater than he is entitled to, and we submit that justice to the consumer requires that that protection be based upon ascertained facts and not upon sweeping unsubstantiated statements of the manufacturers. Respectfully submitted. SEMON BACHE & Co., F. J. GOERTNER, Sales Manager. LOUISVILLE (KY.) MIRROR MAKERS SUBMIT NEW CLASSIFICATION AND SUGGESTED RATES FOR PLATE GLASS. LOUISVILLE, KY., February 20, 1909. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: We, the undersigned manufacturers of mirror plates and large consumers of American and foreign plate glass of Louisville, Ky., hereby respectfully petition you to make only such revision of the glass schedule now covered by paragraphs 102 and 112, inclusive, 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 224 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 |