they are not in this country. And then we can not afford to keep these all the time, because we do not know until the repetition orders come in how much work we will have. But we take the chance and manufacture it. We can sell perhaps to certain milliners who get crowded for orders and can not get the article fast enough from Paris. We can manufacture to a certain extent. We do not enter into the competition with the cheap manufacturer-do not touch that article at all. He only makes the very cheapest article with the cheapest labor, and how it is going to even help him, to increase this duty, in spite of what he says, I can not see.

The CHAIRMAN. In your opinion, is the entire duty added to the price by the domestic manufacturers of these goods, the equivalent amount?

Mr. ZUCKER. I can not answer that exactly, because I do not think I have technical information enough. But I do not think it is; but that is only an inference on my own part.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there such a competition in this country that he can not add the whole of the duty?

Mr. ZUCKER. I can not say. I do not represent any of those cheaper manufacturers.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not mean them, but I mean the manufacturers you do represent.

Mr. ZUCKER. They add, I think, the entire duty.

The CHAIRMAN. But that is only a matter of opinion?

Mr. ZUCKER. That is only a matter of opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. You have no personal knowledge?

Mr. ZUCKER. No.

Mr. BOUTELL. Have there been any charges of undervaluation in the admission of these high-class imported flowers, feathers, and fruits?

Mr. ZUCKER. I have not heard of anything of that kind in years not for years. I have had a friendship with Mr. Stranahan, and I have discussed that subject with him more or less, and I do not think there has been any attempt on their part at all.

Mr. FORDNEY. Where are those goods made abroad-in what coun

try?

Mr. ZUCKER. Both Italy and France. The better grades all in

Paris.

Mr. FORDNEY. By whom is the market value of these goods made; by the importer, the expert from abroad?

Mr. ZUCKER. The foreign manufacturer fixes the cost price; he sells at a certain price. Our importer takes those goods to the American consul at Paris, who issues the original invoices. On that it is done.

Mr. FORDNEY. That is only since this so-called "German trade agreement" has been adopted. Has that always been the case?

Mr. ZUCKER. I understand that to be the case. I know it has been the rule for twelve years in my personal experience.

Mr. FORDNEY. That is, fixed abroad, and not by our Board of Appraisers ?

Mr. ZUCKER. They have nothing to do with it, and have not had in twelve years. My personal experience does not extend back of that. Mr. HILL. Are these what are called "sweat-shop goods?" Mr. ZUCKER. I would only be speaking from hearsay upon that. Mr. HILL. I did not mean to use that in an offensive way.

Mr. ZUCKER. I can only say in regard to that that they have the cheapest girls. I do not represent them, but the higher grade of manufacturers do not do anything of that kind. They have to pay higher prices.

Mr. HILL. Where are the factories that you represent located?

Mr. ZUCKER. What I would call on the better or the west side of Broadway. I do not want to use an offensive term in regard to that, but what I mean is along Broadway, near Houston street, and along there, where the rents are higher and the character of the stores is better.

Mr. HILL. But where are the factories located that you represent? Mr. ZUCKER. The major part of them have them right above their importing houses.

Mr. HILL. Then they are right there on Broadway?

Mr. ZUCKER. On Broadway. He will have his store on the ground floor, and his factory on the three floors above.

Mr. HILL. Who is the largest manufacturer in this line in the United States?

Mr. ZUCKER. I should say of the better grade, Mr. George Legg, of New York City. And, by the way, he personally stated to me that he did not want any increase in this duty, and looking at it from the broadest point of view, he did not ask for a decrease, because there were so much goods on hand.

Mr. HILL. Is he an importer as well as a manufacturer?

Mr. ZUCKER. An importer and a manufacturer; in fact, the majority of these people are. The people who have the largest amount of capital invested in this business are both importers and manufacturers.

Mr. HILL. As a matter of fact, they import, and if the style catches on they go to work and duplicate it here.

Mr. ZUCKER. That is all they do. They can not originate it; they do not dare to do that; they do not know what will be in vogue next season.

The CHAIRMAN. The remedy is to originate the style here?

Mr. ZUCKER. This is what we would like to do, but can not do. The reason that that trade has increased is because of the prosperity; the women buy more hats than they did before, that is all.

Mr. FORDNEY. They have more money with which to buy them? Mr. ZUCKER. Yes; and they want better hats.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT MADE BY JULES A. COLLET, NEW YORK CITY, RELATIVE TO ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS.

SATURDAY, December 12, 1908.

(The witness was previously sworn.)

Mr. COLLET. I wish to contradict my friend, politely, who has just sat down; but when he speaks to you as representing the importers and manufacturers, gentlemen, that is not true. That is plain English, but I can prove it. He represents simply the importers. Mr. George Legg, who he just mentioned, is the largest importer in the

United States and has been for years. Mr. Zucker, this gentleman's cousin, has been one of my biggest customers for years, a man that I have done a great deal of business with on the basis of $1.60 to dollar goods on the other side. Now, as to the entering of goods in undervaluation: I would not like to commit myself criminally, but I can assure you that I did know of it. I had been in Europe with a friend of mine and my wife thirteen or fourteen years ago, and we purchased five or six hundred dollars' worth of goods to bring home of the small manufacturers, and it was offered to us right away as to how much it could be undervalued. That was a plain, common, everyday thing at that time. There was a charge made to the custom-house by two importers a few years ago-you gentlemen can get hold of it, and I do not want to mention any names here, because I have it from hearsay and therefore I do not want to commit myself. But when this man says that I represent the poorest manufacturers, the cheapest labor, it is not true. The class of manufacturers that he has described to you does not amount to 2 per cent of the manufacturers, very little people, who work in their homes and make little specialties of fruit or grain that this schedule covers. I will give you some names here. Who is Mr. Lavanoux? Mr. A. W. Mass & Co., one of the best manufacturers, a man who can copy anything that is imported. I will give you some names: Max Herman, of Broadway; Guerin & Lavanoux, 51 West Third street; New York Flower and Feather Company, of Wooster street; A. T. Williams, Washington place; Lehman Brothers, Broad-' way and Third street; A. W. Mass & Co., 3 Bond street, New York; Meuer, on Great James street; Mr. Fletcher; and David Silva, 625 Broadway.

I do represent the manufacturers. I represent a class of manufacturers that will produce $100,000 worth of goods, and who do import $5.000 to $15,000 worth of goods

The CHAIRMAN. So you stated at the outset.

Mr. COLLET. I want to say to you gentlemen that the reason why the importer only produces what he has to is because once a month he runs short of color that he uses in his factory and he can not get the imports quick enough. Now, as to the style. My own styles, created in this country, and other manufacturers' styles, have been taken by his cousin and by other importers. We can create here just as well, and the class of goods he says we can not make is the class of goods that we make the most of, as a matter of fact, the average-selling, popular goods. When he says we only make the cheapest goods in this country, when roses sell from $1.50 a gross up to $9 a dozen

The CHAIRMAN. You may have three minutes more, Mr. Collet. Mr. COLLET. I do not want to touch anything more, particularly. In conclusion, I want to say it is a very important matter, and I trust you will consider it, regardless of the $18,000,000 worth of business here. It is more vital than many other of the largest schedules, because this has a labor-giving capacity. Take belts, for instance. Our million dollars' worth of goods may take four times as much labor as a million dollars' worth of belts. I invite any of you gentlemen to prove any of my statements in two hours' time in New York City.

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF J. A. COLLET, NEW YORK CITY, RELATIVE TO IMPORTATION OF FLOWERS AND FEATHERS.

BROOKLYN, N. Y., December 12, 1908.

To the WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE.

GENTLEMEN: Either as part of my address or as a supplement as of December 12, 1908, I desire the following statement to be printed as being part thereof. I also want to make this statement under oath, to wit:

Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE,

BROOKLYN, N. Y., December 12, 1908.

Chairman Ways and Means Committee,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: At a meeting held yesterday afternoon of the tariff committee of the Flower and Fancy Feather Manufacturers' Association, for which I speak now, I, myself, put this question to the members present of that committee: I request each of you gentlemen to feel as if each of you were under oath before a supreme court justice, and tell me what, in your opinion, will the present imports be reduced to if 70 per cent duty is fixed on flowers and fancy feathers? Answer: Edward Lavanoux, 30 per cent; Mr. De Jong, flowers 30 per cent, feathers 20 per cent; Mr. Rascover, 20 per cent; Joseph Frey, 15 per cent; A. T. Williams, 15 per cent; Mr. Meuer, 15 per cent; Mr. Pletscher, 20 per cent.

J. A. COLLET.

JACOB DE JONG, FOR ASSOCIATED FLOWER AND FANCY FEATHER MANUFACTURERS, FILES SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RELATIVE TO ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS AND FEATHERS.

NEW YORK CITY, December 19, 1908.

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: Supplementary to the few remarks made by me before your committee on November 28 upon the subject of artificial flowers and fancy feathers, covering section 425 of the present tariff act, I beg to submit the following memorandum:

Personally, as one of the leading manufacturers in this line and by authority of the Associated Manufacturers of America of flowers and fancy feathers, you are respectfully requested to increase the duty on artificial flowers and fancy feathers to such an extent as you may deem wise and proper.

The present duty is 50 per cent, and an increase of duty to either 60 or 70 per cent would greatly benefit the domestic industry. It is possible that under a duty of 70 per cent importations may be decreased to such an extent that might possibly reduce the revenue to the Government from this source, and believing, as I do, that the present tariff reform movement has for its object the reduction of duty on raw materials, which would naturally greatly reduce the country's revenues, it may be essential to only increase the tariff on articles of luxury such as ours only to such an extent as would tend to produce greater revenue, in order to offset the losses caused by articles being placed upon the free list, due consideration being

given to the fact that the Government at the present time is facing a large deficit.

If my reasoning in this respect is right and coincides with the opinions entertained by your committee, it is but natural and dutiful that any action taken must be in accordance with these facts.

The present importations in round figures amount to about $6,300,000 per annum, providing a revenue of about $3,150,000. Being thoroughly familiar with this subject, I am firmly convinced, as the future no doubt will prove, that a duty of 60 per cent may have the effect of checking the steady increase of importations in the future, but at the same time maintaining importations on the present basis, this would cause an increase in revenue of at least $600,000 per year, and I believe that under a duty of 70 per cent there may possibly be a slight increase in revenue, but I am not sure about-this point, therefore if one of the objects of your committee in framing the new tariff law is to increase the duty on articles of luxury, in order to bring a greater revenue to the Government, and at the same time give ample protection to the home industry, I must confess that 60 per cent is the proper tariff on this class of goods, from every sensible, patriotic, and business view.

It may be stated right here that artificial flowers and fancy feathers should have been classified under a 60 per cent tariff in the present Dingley bill. Why this class of goods was placed at 50 per cent, when all other articles of this character, such as laces, braids, trimmings of every description, flounces, etc., are 60 per cent I can not understand, particularly as everything used in the trimming of a lady's hat, with the exception of artificial flowers and fancy feathers, pays 60 per cent at present; this, although your committee may not be experienced in the millinery line, must surely appear to you as an inconsistency, especially so when you bear in mind that had flowers and feathers been placed under a 60 per cent duty in the Dingley bill, it would have greatly helped the development of our home production, and at the same time provided an additional $4,000,000 to the revenue.

A duty of 60 per cent on artificial flowers and fancy feathers would give a wonderful impetus to our home industry. The manufacturers are satisfied to supply the gradual increased demand in this line. It is undeniable that this class of goods will always be imported to a certain extent, at least so long as American women insist upon getting the imported article, even though the domestic product may be superior. If they are willing to pay higher prices, simply because the article is imported, then by all means let the Government have the benefit.

The domestic manufacturers are gradually developing the home production, and have already made the domestic industry important enough to compete with foreign manufacturers to such an extent as to keep down arbitrary prices, formerly dictated by foreign producers. Were it not for the fact that the domestic manufacturer is obliged to pay an average duty of nearly 50 per cent on most of the material he uses, and for the further fact that labor in this line here receives more than double the same labor in Europe, and also the greater expenses of rent and other fixed charges, the American manufacturer would need no protection whatever. Bearing in mind the differentiation between cost of materials, labor, rents, etc., a duty of 60 per cent only partly equalizes the cost of manufacture here with abroad. Were we to endeavor to fix a perfect equalization, it appears