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 224 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 224-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.

GLASS MARBLES.

[Paragraph 112.]

THE STROBEL & WILKEN COMPANY, NEW YORK CITY, OBJECT TO SUGGESTED INCREASE OF DUTY ON GLASS MARBLES.

591 BROADWAY, NEW YORK,

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

Washington, D. C.

January 23, 1909.

GENTLEMEN: Noting an application for an increase of duty on ass marbles, appearing in report of the Tariff Hearings of January

5, 1909, we deem it advisable to call to your attention what percentage of increase is demanded.

You will find from Exhibit A, hereto attached, that the rate of duty proposed by Daniel C. Ripley, president of the United States Glass Company, would average from 94 per cent to 273 per cent. We wish further to state that the entire importation of glass marbles in the year 1905 amounted to $21,412; in 1906, $23,975. We have no report as to the importations in the years 1907 and 1908, but know that it has fallen off.

Glass marbles that are imported are entirely different styles than those made in the United States, and although we sell the imported, we also supply our customers with the domestic makes as well.

To our knowledge there have been but two makers of glass marbles in this country, Messrs. M. F. Christensen & Son, Akron, Ohio, and Barberton Glass Novelty Company, Barberton, Ohio. The latter factory discontinued last year, but we understand intends to

resume.

We believe that there are as many glass marbles made here as are imported, and, as already mentioned, styles being entirely different, we see no reason why the duty should be increased, or to ask for a prohibitive duty such as has been proposed.

Yours, respectfully,

THE STROBEL & WILKEN Co.,
E. STROBEL, President.

EXHIBIT A.

M. F. CHRISTENSEN & SON, AKRON, OHIO, ASK A SPECIFIC CLASSIFICATION AND INCREASE OF DUTY FOR GLASS MARBLES.

AKRON, OHIO, February 3, 1909.

Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: We respectfully submit our views in the matter of manufacturing glass marbles and caster balls.

In October, 1904, we started a small factory here in Akron, Ohio, for the exclusive purpose of manufacturing this product. From that time on we have labored along, but to great disadvantage with our foreign competitors, it being possible to put imported glass marbles on our American market; for example, No. 0 imported glass marbles are offered to the trade in this country at $1.57 per thousand against our No. 0 glass marbles, with an actual cost of manufacturing here of $2.80 per thousand. The principal element in our problem being labor, at which we also labor to great disadvantage with our foreign competitors in the price we are compelled to pay for it; we have, however, maintained our unequal struggle with manufacturers from abroad in such a way as to keep our industry alive, but scarcely more; we are, however, capable of survival but of almost indefinite extension if, during, the crucial period the principle of giving adequate protection to our industry during the time it is actually needed it applies to our case. We feel that this industry is one which fulfills all the conditions required for the free and generous application of the protective principle; it is literally an infant industry; the protection which it absolutely requires is a protection against foreign poorly paid hand labor, and in favor of domestic high class skilled labor.

The consumption annually of marbles and caster balls in the United States is very great, and an adequate duty should therefore be placed on all glass marbles and caster balls imported into the United States. In our case we are not demanding, but respectfully ask, your honorable Committee on Ways and Means to consider for us a duty of $1 per thousand, and, if possible, the retention of the present ad valorem duty on all glass marbles and caster balls.

We would also ask that a new schedule in the tariff law be made to cover glass marbles and caster balls, if such is not upon record already.

Yours, very respectfully,

M. F. CHRISTENSEN & SON, Per M. F. CHRISTENSEN.

STAINED GLASS.

[Paragraph 112.]

IMPORTERS REQUEST THAT STAINED GLASS FOR CHURCHES BE MADE DUTIABLE AT 25 PER CENT.

32 BROADWAY, NEW YORK CITY,

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

House of Representatives.

February 4, 1909.

GENTLEMEN: On behalf of the importers of stained window glass and stained-glass windows, I beg to submit the following brief in reply to briefs filed on behalf of various manufacturers of stainedglass windows in this country:

Prior to the McKinley tariff of 1890, stained-glass windows portraying biblical and religious subjects imported by or for churches, or for presentation to churches, were imported free of duty under provisions in the free lists of the various tariffs for paintings imported

for the use or for presentation to societies incorporated for religious purposes.

When the McKinley tariff was formed, the manufacturers of stained glass in this country made urgent representations to Congress that the stained-glass window industry was an infant industry in this country entitled to protection, and that if protection were accorded to it it could be developed and largely supply the demand in this country. Moved by these representations, the committee made a specific provision for stained-glass windows and stained window glass at a duty of 45 per cent, and expressly exempted from the paragraph providing for paintings presented to churches stained window glass and stained-glass windows.

The paragraph providing for paintings imported by or for the use of churches did not contain this exception, but the Supreme Court held, in the case of United States v. Perry (146 U. S., 71), that in view of the other provisions of Congress this exception must be considered as implied in the paragraph providing for importations for

churches.

From 1890 until the present time the rates of duty asked for by the manufacturers of stained-glass windows have been continued, and the prediction made by those who asked for protection has been verified, and the stained-glass window industry in this country has thrived and developed until there are now a few large houses and a number of small ones who are doing a large and prosperous business in this line.

In spite of the way in which their industry has thrived and developed under the present duty during the past eighteen years, the manufacturers are now demanding increased protection. An example of the moderation of their demands is furnished by the application of the Von Gerichten Art Glass Company, of Columbus, Ohio, whose application will be found in tariff hearings. They ask that there be substituted for the present duty a specific rate of $2 per square foot and 20 per cent ad valorem, with the statement that this will just bring up the cost of the European window in New York with that of the American manufacturer, allowing a reasonable profit.

This company furnishes in its application a comparative statement of European and American cost. In this statement, under the number 5, they state that 165 square feet are used for the window, and that the total European cost is $120.50. It requires a very simple mathematical calculation to see that if a tax of $2 a square foot is put on 165 square feet it will amount to $330, and that if 20 per cent ad valorem is assessed on a foreign cost of $120.50 it will amount to $24.10. Adding these two proposed duties together we have a duty of $354.60 proposed for a window on which the foreign value is $120.20, a duty of 294 per cent ad valorem.

It is certainly a very startling proposition that the duty on any article where a prosperous industry has been built up in this country should suddenly be changed from 45 per cent ad valorem to 294 per cent ad valorem upon the claim that the established industry needs protection.

It is a matter of common knowledge that with slight exceptions the use of stained-glass windows is for churches. It has been the policy of Congress, recognized in innumerable tariff acts, to favor the cause of religion by allowing the free importation of articles intended