shown in Exhibit A, have come in and sold their productions and taken large business. We are informed that some of our customers have bought the Drummond fabrics extensively. We believe this firm has sold thousands of pieces of these cloths, fabrics. The question is, How do they do it? And if they can do it and live up to every identical requirement of Dingley tariff, it certainly confirms the fact that our branch of the industry, as manufacturers of woven cloths, fabrics, is not overprotected. We ourselves feel the real trouble is ad valorem rate of duty is at fault, and that it ought to be changed to specific rate of duty, which can be fairly and honestly collected by any custom-house appraiser who would not require the foreign manufacturer to put his own value on his goods. We would suggest for your serious consideration that whatever amount of protection you put on the wool, worsted yarns, or manufactures of wool, be in a specific rate of duty entirely, apportioned to each branch of the industry, viz, wool raising, manufacturing of yarns from the wool, and manufacturing of cloths, woven fabrics, based on the labor cost involved in each, with proper compensating duties on yarns and woolen goods, sufficient on the latter to reimburse it for duty placed, wool and yarns, the raw materials of the cloth manufacturer. Reference to awarding any measure of protection Congress may give to wool and manufactures thereof, in a specific rate of duty entirely that could always be honestly and fairly collected by any customs appraiser without asking any foreigner or importer to appraise the value of their own importations, we think that a specific rate of duty could readily be devised by your own tariff experts based on the labor cost involved in the wool raising, making of the yarns from wool, manufacturing cloth from the yarns, or on any process from wool to the finished product. It is well known that the least labor cost goes into the wool and first process of manufacturing, as top making, then comes the yarn with still higher labor cost, and lastly, the manufacturing of the cloth or fabric, which calls for the greatest amount of high-cost skilled labor. We are not prepared to tell you the relative amount of labor cost involved in the wool, the yarns, and the finished woven goods. Your committee through its own tariff experts could easily determine this with prefect equity to each branch of the industry, as their investigation determined, but in apportioning whatever rate of duty Congress decides is necessary for the protection of the industry against the cheaper cost of production of foreign manufacturers of wool we would again ask you to use every influence in favor of specific rate of duty entirely. This is our special plea, so that whatever amount of protection Congress awards the industry, it can always be collected and under valuation effectively prevented. This specific form of duty, if placed on yarns according to the number or size, fineness of the thread, would always be according to the labor cost, as it is the thickness or size of thread which invariably governs the labor involved and cost of production, and on the woven cloth, fabric, the number of picks per inch in the cloth would almost always govern the labor involved and cost of production. A specific rate of duty carefully laid out on these lines, which we outlined in our brief of November 27, could be scientifically and accurately framed, laid out, so as to be perfectly fair and equitable to each branch of the industry, and based entirely on the labor cost involved in each one, and would have the advantage of a perfect sliding scale according to the labor cost involved. It would also be simple and easy for any custom appraiser to collect; that undervaluation would be effectively prevented, for any appraisers could quite readily determine the size of the thread of yarn by reeling a skein or two, and equally as easy could the appraisers count the number of picks of filling in any cloth or fabric and collect the rate of duty accordingly. For Schedule K, paragraphs governing wool and the different branches of manufactures thereof, we again ask your careful consideration of specific form of duties for the entire industry, and based on the amount of labor or cost of production involved in each branch of the industry with equitable compensating duty on yarns and cloths. We believe, with protection awarded in specific rate of duty on plan outlined, the industry could accept a little less measure of protection and thrive better than if it had a higher measure of the ad valorem rate, as under the latter the domestic manufacturer does not receive the protection Congress awarded, because of undervaluation. Yours, very truly, PERSEVERANCE WORSTED Co., SCHEDULE L-SILKS AND SILK GOODS. SILK GLOVES. AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS WISH PRESENT DUTIES MAINTAINED AND SEPARATE CLASSIFICATION GIVEN. Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, WASHINGTON, D. C., December 16, 1908. Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. SIR: The undersigned manufacturers of silk gloves respectfully submit to your committee the following statement, to be considered in connection with the testimony given by Mr. Julius Kayser, of New York, on December 1, 1908: Relative to the great manufacturing industries of this country, and also possibly excepting Julius Kayser & Co., the manufacturers engaged in making silk gloves are small and independent manufacturers. These manufacturers are confronted with a very high labor rate. Kindred industries in this country, such as hosiery and underwear, pay much smaller wages than do silk-glove manufacturers. Without further thought we can not agree with Mr. Kayser that the present ad valorem duty of 60 per cent should be changed to a specific rate. We are building up an industry that actually does pay high wages, and an industry which is growing and has grown, in the past three years, enormously in volume. The price of our raw silk is, in a measure, fixed the world over (it is true that the European manufacturer has a great advantage in the throwing or twisting of this silk that the American manufacturer can not obtain), and our increased cost for the better grades means increased cost of labor for each better grade. Therefore, it would seem that an ad valorem duty, properly administered, better protects our industry. The present duty of 60 per cent is by no means prohibitive, and our business is conducted in keen competition with the European manufacturers. Our burdens are much greater than the European manufacturer's in every respect. His investments are not nearly so burdensome as ours. Mr. Kayser's remarks as to imports may be misleading. It is true that prior to 1904 the importation of silk gloves amounted to very little. However, this was not due to a prohibitive tariff, but to the fact that the silk-glove business in America was largely controlled by Mr. Kayser and by another American manufacturer. These men had secured patents on improved methods of reenforcing the finger tips of silk gloves, which practically barred the inferior European product and also barred American competition. When these patents expired in 1904 the importations steadily increased until they reached fully 15 per cent of the total consumption in 1907, as Mr. Kayser's figures show, and after the expiration of these patents other manufactories for silk gloves sprang up and have rapidly created a great business in this country. Our best estimates show that the 60 per cent duty does not keep out the foreign glove, but that, on the contrary, so far as the duty is concerned, the foreign glove can supplant ours. A great consideration in ladies' gloves has been the sudden changes in fashions, which have made it difficult for the large merchants and wholesalers to contract for their requirements in Europe nine months in advance. They naturally prefer to wait until they know the styles their trade will demand and then have their needs supplied at short notice by the American manufacturer; and just here a danger is arising to our industry. The styles will be more fixed in the future, probably, than in the past and we will lose the protection that this consideration gave us. Then will come the time when we will depend upon the protection against the foreign cheap labor that a tariff affords. When these styles become fixed the foreign manufacturer can store up goods to await quick orders. His investment will be much less than ours can possibly be, because his labor is, in many cases, as Mr. Kayser states, five-sixths less than ours. A silk glove manufacturer in Nottingham, England, told one of the undersigned that he could obtain the services of 200 women in his city at the wage of $1.50 per week to do the work that the undersigned paid women $1.50 per day and upward. Mr. Kayser states that he makes only cotton gloves in his German factories and that he makes them exclusively for the American market. We quite agree with the statement of Judge Griggs, that we ought to make cotton gloves in this country. We believe that we ought to make all kinds of ladies' gloves as well as men's in this country. At the present tariff on cotton gloves (50 per cent ad valorem) it is impossible to compete with Europe. There is not a pair of cotton gloves made in the United States to-day; the German and English manufacturers control the business, and even the United States Government pays tribute to these manufacturers in placing their army and navy contracts. Some of us have tested this cotton manufacture at considerable expense, and have always found that the foreign goods (owing to cheap labor) could be produced at a profit below our cost of production. The Reading Glove and Mitten Company, Reading, Pa., produced cotton gloves for three years and lost money each year. Their books and records are at the disposal of your committee. It may seem strange that silk gloves could compete with European manufacturers at 60 per cent ad valorem, and that cotton gloves can not with 50 per cent ad valorem. To some extent this is explained by a comparison of raw materials, the raw silk being free and the cotton yarns paying a duty of 24 to 60 cents per pound. This cotton yarns, on which there is a great labor item, is principally made in England, and not made in this country. The German manufacturer pays a nominal duty on this English yarn, which duty is refunded to him by the German Government if the manufactured goods are exported. Our belief is that a reduction in the present tariff would mean less work in our factories and necessarily lower wages to those employed. In quality our production is now the best in the world, and this production is given to the public at a fair price. There is every indication of a great demand for the silk glove if the present high standard of quality can be kept up. We believe that only the American manufacturer will keep this quality up; that if the foreign manufacturer crowded us out of business a lower level in the trade would be reached. We are in this country and back up the style, fit, and wearing qualities of our goods. If these qualities are not right the customer can go to us directly if necessary. With the foreign manufactured article there is no redress except to use it or not, as the consumer pleases. We respectfully submit that our present rate of duty on silk gloves ought to be maintained and that these gloves, if necessary, should be put in a paragraph by themselves or joined with other fabric gloves in a paragraph. We protest that the duty on our product ought not to be lowered simply to classify it with other silk manufactured articles. Most respectfully submitted. The Gloversville Silk Mills, by Albert M. Banker, President, Gloversville, N. Y.; Niagara Silk Mills, by J. T. Shanahan, President, North Tonawanda, N. Y.; Clark Textile Co., by J. H. Clark, President, Saratoga, N. Y. OTHER AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS OF SILK GLOVES WRITE IN ADVOCACY OF RETENTION OF PRESENT DUTIES. Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE, WASHINGTON, D. C., December 14, 1908. Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. SIR: The undersigned manufacturers of silk gloves respectfully submit to your committee the following statement, to be considered. in connection with the testimony given by Mr. Julius Kayser, of New York, on December 1, 1908: We do not agree with Mr. Kayser that the present ad valorem duty of 60 per cent should be changed to a specific rate. The market price of raw silk is subject to violent fluctuations; within the last eighteen months the price of the same standard quality has been as low as $3.40 and as high as $6 per pound. Prices of our finished product have fluctuated in proportion, and no specific duty could be fixed to cover such a wide range of prices and give us at all times the protection that Congress intended us to have. The present duty of 60 per cent is by no means prohibitive; our business is conducted in keen competition with the European manufacturers. Mr. Kayser's remarks as to imports are misleading. It is true that prior to 1904 the importations of silk gloves amounted to very little. This, however, was not due to a prohibitive tariff, but to the fact that the business in silk gloves was controlled by two large American manufacturers, of which Mr. Kayser was one, who had secured patents on an improved method of reenforcing the finger |