Mr. FAULKNER. That is a question I would have to figure on very carefully before I could answer it intelligently. Mr. GRIGGS. Then they might increase the price of it, might they not? Mr. FAULKNER. I do not see how they could. Mr. FAULKNER. I do not see how they could. Mr. GRIGGS. You do not see how they could, but you are very uncertain? Mr. FAULKNER. They might increase the price of that small glass; they might increase the price of the large glass; I might go further and say that they should. Whether they can or not, I do not know, but I do know that it is entirely too low. Mr. DALZELL. The question of price depends entirely upon competition? Mr. FAULKNER. Yes; entirely. The CHAIRMAN. If you would answer a little more directly and not explain so much we would save some time. We have not any to spare. Mr. FAULKNER. It seems that our understanding is different about this matter. Mr. GRIGGS. I have no further questions. Mr. RANDELL. I would like to ask the witness a question or two. You say that increasing the tariff, in your opinion, would not increase the price, but would keep out the smaller glass. Do you mean by that that the foreign manufacturer could not afford to pay the tariff and come into this market and sell glass at the price that it would be sold for here? That is what you mean, is it not? Mr. FAULKNER. Yes, sir; except that it is not the foreign manufacturer that I am after; it is the importer that imports the glass. Mr. RANDELL. The tariff wall would keep out the foreign manufacturer? Mr. FAULKNER. Yes, sir. Mr. RANDELL. And that would give you opportunity to get three weeks more work in this country to supply that glass? Mr. FAULKNER. Yes, sir. I want to compel them to buy American products. Mr. RANDELL. I do not not want to take up much time. Is that correct or not? Mr. FAULKNER. Yes, sir; that is it exactly. Mr. RANDELL. All right. Now, then, the same condition that would bar out his product would put it in the power of the glass manufacturer-if it was just one man, say, who was manufacturing the glass here to raise the price of glass in this country, would it not? Mr. FAULKNER. I do not believe that you understand the situation. Mr. RANDELL. Just answer my question, either "yes or "no," or say that you do not know. Mr. FAULKNER. I would not be placed on record in a thing of that kind; I would not do that. Mr. RANDELL. The same condition that would bar out the foreign product would give the power to the manufacturer here, if he should act as one man, to raise the price higher than it is now, would it not? Mr. FAULKNER. It might possibly give him that power. Mr. RANDELL. Do you not know that it would give him that power? Mr. FAULKNER. But that is not the intention of it. Mr. RANDELL. Answer my question, please, and I will soon be through with you. It would give him that power, would it not? [After a pause.] Then you do not know? Mr. FAULKNER. I do not know. I can give you my opinion; but if you ask me something that I do not know, I will have to tell you that I do not know it. Mr. RANDELL. That would keep him from having competition from abroad, would it not? Mr. FAULKNER. The competition the manufacturer in this country faces from abroad is not from the manufacturer; it is from the importer that buys that glass over there and sells it on the market. Mr. RANDELL. I understand that; but if the tariff wall was so high that he could not afford to bring that glass in there, then that glass would not compete, and the competition would be in this country, would it not? Mr. FAULKNER. Exactly. Mr. RANDELL. If all the glass in this country was manufactured by one man, he could not compete with himself; he could simply fix the price at the amount he pleased, not to go above the tariff wall and let the others in? Is not that true? Mr. FAULKNER. Yes; but Mr. RANDELL. Just answer (6 yes" or Mr. FAULKNER. I want to answer 66 explain what I mean. "no," if you please. 29 ves or "no," but I want to Mr. RANDELL. Answer it first, and then explain. Mr. FAULKNER. If it was in that shape; but it is not in that shape. Mr. RANDELL. Then you say 66 yes? Mr. FAULKNER. Why, no; I will not say "yes" to a proposition of that kind. Mr. RANDELL. I say, if it was that way? Mr. FAULKNER. Certainly not, for this reason. Here is the point: It is absolutely, utterly impossible for it to be placed in the hands of one man, because you have hand plants in this country and machine plants in this country. They are competing in the market; they are rivals; and it is not in one man's hands, and never can be. Mr. RANDELL. Wait a minute. If you can not answer my questions without taking up all this time in argument I shall have to withdraw the question. Mr. FAULKNER. I have answered it in my own way. Mr. RANDELL. If that could be the case, by combination-if these different plants could get together and the price could be controlledyou are willing that they should have the power to raise the price to all the people of the country in order that your 6,700 men might get three weeks' more labor; are you not? Mr. FAULKNER. On that small stuff? Mr. RANDELL. Yes. Mr. FAULKNER. I am unwilling to have then do that, because they will not do it, in my judgment, on account of the competition between the hand and the machine plants. Mr. RANDELL. What assurance have you that if they had this same protection they would not put down the price of labor instead of putting it up? Mr. FAULKNER. If they attempted anything of that kind we would have to meet it; that is all. We have no assurance of it. Mr. RANDELL. You would think hard of it? Mr. RANDELL. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any others to be heard on this windowglass paragraph? As there does not seem to be anyone else here, we will take up the question of bottles. We will now hear Mr. E. A. Agard, of Fairbury, Ill. STATEMENT OF E. A. AGARD, OF FAIRBURY, ILL. Mr. AGARD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, at the age of 11 years my father entered one of the few glass-bottle factories then in this country as a "tending boy; " as the small boy who carried away the bottles when made by the blower was called at that time. He worked his way through the various grades of employees, remaining actively engaged in the business, until he retired at the age of 60 years. I myself went to work in a glass factory at the age of 14 years, became a blower at 19, and worked at the trade for several years, and am now a member in good standing of the Glass Bottle Blowers' Association, although it has been about twelve years since I worked at the trade; and though I appear before you to-day representing the manufacturers, by heredity, birth, education, and training my sympathies remain with the workmen; and in discussing the effect of a protected tariff, or the lack thereof, upon this industry, even from the standpoint of a manufacturer. I can not get away from the effect of my early environments, and the thought of the weal or the woe of the employees. The skilled mechanic and his family is always uppermost in my mind. The manufacturers of glass bottles most respectfully urge that in any revision of the tariff that you may recommend that the present import duties upon bottles may remain undisturbed. Within the past eighteen or twenty years we have had some experience with the baneful effects of a lesser tariff upon our product, and a repetition of those experiences at this time can not be contemplated with other than grave misgivings. The tariff acts of 1883 and 1890 were such a stimulus to the industry that within that period the number of men employed in the production of glass bottles increased more than threefold, and the amount of capital invested in this business was correspondingly increased. The tariff law of 1894, known as the "Wilson bill," which went into effect August 27, 1894, dealt us a blow from which we were years in recovering. During all of the time this act, which reduced the duty on glass bottles from 17 per cent to 40 per cent, and in some cases nearly one-half, was in operation the business was in a terribly demoralized condition. Many furnaces remained out of blast the entire time, others were only operated a part of the time, several were permanently abandoned, and only a few establishments, in the interior of the country and far removed from seaports and closely adjacent to the purchaser, were able to run with any degree of regularity. It was a grim and bitter struggle for existence that taxed the intelligence, patience, ingenuity, skill, and financial resources of employer and employee alike to the utmost. After the most rigid and economical methods of production and distribution had been adopted, there still remained so wide a difference between the cost of production of bottles in this country and the cost of production in Europe that we were forced to ask our men to increase their hours of labor in an effort to meet the situation and stem the tide and flood of importation. This, failing to meet the situation, and we being unable to hold our own against foreign competition, we were finally reluctantly compelled to ask our employees to come to our assistance by accepting a reduction in wages of from 15 to 25 per cent. Our labor is highly skilled and intelligent, but a proposition of this character, which would reduce their standard of life and living below the comfort line, met with the most determined opposition from them. They were slow to grasp the gravity of the situation with which we were confronted, and to realize that our very industrial life was at stake, and for a time refusing to meet the unpleasant crisis in the only way possible, strikes and labor disputes. with all of their attendant heartburnings, misunderstandings, and disturbances ensued, until a fuller appreciation of our unhappy plight was reluctantly borne home to them, and they went to work, where employment could be secured, at the reduced wage. In the manufacture of glass bottles nearly all of the cost lies in the wages paid to labor, the material of which the glass is composed-lime, sand, and soda-being of small value except for the necessary labor expended upon it, so that any reduction in the tariff upon bottles must fall most heavily upon labor, who will quickly and fiercely resent any attempt to take from them or to reduce the value of the only thing they have to sell-that is, their brawn and skill. And who will say that their position is not a natural, a logical, and a proper one. Certainly the people and the business interests of this country can not fail to be injured by anything that reduces the purchasing power of a large number of individuals and that brings upon us wide-spread labor disturbances and strife, which we are seeking in this instance to avoid. Some of the papers are seeking to advocate a reduction of the tariff upon various lines of manufactured articles in the interest, as they claim, of the consumer. I heard a gentleman say just a few moments ago there is a great clamor upon the part of the consumer for a reduced tariff. I do not know where that clamor is. I think I meet as many consumers, perhaps, among those who are not interested in protected industries as any man on this committee. I live in a purely agricultural community, and at some time during the year, I think it is safe to say, every farmer in the township goes through my office and I meet him and talk to him. I am interested in this subject as well as in every economical and industrial subject. I have never failed in the last year to meet a farmer five minutes without asking him his views on the tariff question, and I have never heard one of them advocate a reduction upon a single article that is manufactured in this country. The CHAIRMAN. We do not care about that. Proceed with your argument. Mr. AGARD. Very well, Mr. Chairman. The European manufacturers have such an overwhelming advantage in the way of cheaper production-that is, cheaper labor-that they can put their product on the American market at a price that is simply impossible for the American manufacturer to meet without a tariff high enough to be protective. Indeed, if glass bottles were admitted free of duty, it would, in my opinion, mean the extinction of the business in this country. The reduction of the import duty will not, in this case, as I have said before, benefit the general public, who, in the last analysis, is the consumer. Upon the contrary, it will result in a direct and permanent injury to the general public, by reason of the closing of many plants, with the dispersing and scattering of large bodies of skilled workmen and the reduction of the purchasing power of all of those identified with this business, even if some of the factories should be able to continue in operation. If the price of bottles was reduced to the brewer, the bottler, and to the great establishments of so-called patent and proprietary medicines, what possible benefit can the consumer derive from that. Beer, mineral water, and patent medicines will still sell at retail at the same price, and even the bottler would not be benefited, as the destruction of their business would have put it beyond the power of a large number of former consumers to purchase the product of the bottler. A single illustration to which I called your attention a moment ago will illustrate my meaning. "Warner's Safe Cure," which is a patent medicine, costs at retail $1 per bottle, equal to $144 per gross. The cost of a gross of bottles, laid down in Rochester, N. Y., is about $4. a very small fraction of the total cost. Suppose by a reduction of the tariff the price of bottles is reduced to $3 per gross, making the cost of the medicine $143 per gross, what possible chance is there for the retail buyer, the general public, to get any benefit from the reduced price, which is less than 1 cent per bottle? The European manufacturer has another great advantage over the American manufacturer in the fact that he can and does operate his plant twelve months in the year, while in this country we are forced to close our glass factories during the months of July and August, and in some cases both the months of June and September, these months being altogether too hot for the operation of our plants to be profitable. The foreign manufacturer erects a furnace and operates it continuously until it is burned out, which may be a couple of years, and then closes down to repair or rebuild. In this country a tank furnace will cost about $20,000, and after being operated from seven to ten months must be closed because the weather has become too hot to permit its operation. The putting out of the fires in a glass furnace means its practical destruction, and it must be rebuilt before it can be again operated, so that in the item of furnaces alone the cost of the American manufacturer is more than double that of his foreign competitor. The following will show the cost of the standard sizes of beer and water bottles in Germany, taken from statistics, and the cost of production of the same class of ware in this country. Cost of making a gross of pint and quart beer and water bottles in Germany: Labor, salaries, and blowing, 65 cents; fuel, material, boxing, and supplies, $1.05; total cost of production, $1.70. I have not the exact figures giving cost of production of glass bottles in England, but I do know that it is more than $1 per gross less than the cost in this country, upon pint and quart beers, water bottles, and goods of that character. |