most hardly upon the poorer classes of our population, the present tariff will average about 100 per cent or more, figuring upon the ordinary window glass, which comprises by far the greater part of the total consumption. We submit figures on memorandum B attached. Here again, as in plate glass, many sizes are selling currently on this side in American glass for less than the duty on the imported glass, and that such a prohibitory tariff as is now in force is absolutely unnecessary is obvious at a glance. In fact, there is much less need for excessive protection on window glass than on almost any product of the United States. Fully half of the window glass consumed in this country, this half being something over 3,000,000 boxes of 50 feet each, has for the last five years been made by patented machinery under the exclusive control of one corporation, as a result of which the cost of labor in producing machine-made glass, as compared with hand-made glass such as is imported, is very small, no skilled workmen such as blowers, gatherers, or snappers being required. Since window glass has been made by machinery in this country not only have the wages of blowers, gatherers, and snappers in the hand-producing factories been reduced by considerably over 50 per cent, but the selling price of all window glass has been dictated practically by the people in control of the machine product. Knowledge of the exact cost of producing window glass by machine is naturally only known to the manufacturers, but these manufacturers themselves must acknowledge that they are not in need of governmental assistance. We recommend the adoption of the following schedule on unpolished cylinder, crown, and common window glass: Sizes not exceeding 10 by 15----- Sizes exceeding 10 by 15 and not exceeding 16 by 24. cent per pound. 1 cent per pound. 14 cents per pound. 14 cents per pound. 13 cents per pound. together with a further provision, the same as in polished plate glass, that in no case shall the specific duty exceed an amount equal to an ad valorem duty of 50 per cent, and submit that such a schedule would still offer ample protection to the American manufacturer. Regarding the duties on fluted, ribbed, rough, or rolled plate, etc. (paragraph 103), a very brief statement is sufficient: One-eighth inch thick. American manufacturers' selling 3 cents per square foot. 4 cents per square foot.. Duty. 3 cents per square foot. This variety of glass is selling in European markets at prices not less than the American manufacturers' prices, and we submit, therefore, that a duty not exceeding one-half cent per square foot would be ample protection here also. Regarding cylinder and crown glass polished (paragraph 102) this article is not made in the United States at all and never has been. The present rates of duty are not so inordinately excessive as in the other schedules, but are nevertheless based upon conditions of two decades ago and should be reduced as follows: Sizes not exceeding 16 by 24_ Sizes exceeding 16 by 24 and not exceeding 24 by 30. 3 cents per square foot. 4 cents per square foot. 10 cents per square foot. Regarding mirror plates (paragraph 105) the present schedule is based upon an additional protection of 3 cents per square foot above the protection accorded to plate glass. A revised schedule for this paragraph should follow the lines of the revised schedule which we propose on polished plate glass. Unpolished cylinder, crown, and common window glass. Unpolished cylinder, crown, and common window glass-Continued. STATEMENT OF W. L. CLAUSE, OF PITTSBURG, PA., PRESIDENT OF THE PITTSBURG PLATE GLASS COMPANY, RELATIVE TO PLATE GLASS CLASSIFICATION. TUESDAY, November 24, 1908. Mr. CLAUSE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we wish to call your attention to the imports of plate glass that have taken place under paragraph 104 of the Dingley tariff bill, which you will note have increased enormously, notwithstanding the fact that that bill made a slight increase in the rate on the first two brackets. The imports for the various years under this tariff have been as follows: Mr. NEEDHAM. I understood the last witness to say that the importations exist wholly of the character of glass not manufactured in this country. Mr. CLAUSE. Well, I should hardly want to be responsible for some of the statements made by the last witness, and that is one of them I would not want to be responsible for. That is not a fact. The glass imported is not of a class, of a kind, made in this country. The CHAIRMAN. I think the members of the committee will all find a copy of this brief upon their desks. Mr. CLAUSE. The Wilson bill materially reduced the rates on the two highest brackets, and this was not restored. You will note that the increase in imports did not become material until the year 1901. This is no doubt due to the fact that beginning with the year 1900 there has been almost a constant increase in the cost of production in this country, due to the advance in wages and the increased cost of materials entering into the product, which have greatly increased the cost of manufacture, and to the further fact that, beginning at about that time, the railroads in connection with some of the trans-Atlantic steamship lines began to issue through rates of freight from Antwerp to all of the inland points of consumption in the United States, which were very much less than were charged upon plate glass of domestic production. This competition became so acute that a plate-glass works located at Antwerp could have distributed its product in the United States at lower average freight rates than one located at Pittsburg. To be more specific, the rate of freight from Antwerp to Chicago was materially less than the rate from Pittsburg to Chicago. We repeatedly called the attention of the Interstate Commerce Commission to this condition, and finally brought action against the railroads, but the commission after long delay, rendered a decision to the effect that they were helpless to give us relief in the matter. Just at the present moment the railroads have advanced the rates on imported glass, but they are in position to lower the rates again at any time that the movement of their empty. equipment inland from the seaboard makes it expedient for them to do so. This action on the part of the railroads is in effect equivalent to a partial reduction in the tariff. We wish especially to call your attention to the imports in the five-tenth-foot bracket, paying 22 cents per foot duty, which, you will note, have grown until they are about equal to the entire imports in all brackets in the years 1898 and 1899, and, in fact, in some years have surpassed them. This, it seems to us, is conclusive that a duty of 22 cents per foot is not sufficient to shut out imports. How has the foreigner been able to pay 22 cents per foot duty and sell his glass in this market? Because it costs him half (or less) as much to build a factory, and when once built he operates it at one-third the rates of wages paid in this country. In this connection we think it proper to reconsider the question as to whether the present tariff is drafted in such a way as to meet the necessities for protection and the principle laid down by the Republican platform. In the first place, let it be thoroughly understood that it costs just as much per square foot to make a small sheet as a large one. In other words, the cost of production of small sizes is just as great, proportionately, as it is of large, and, in fact, the losses in the works which surround the production of small sizes are in many respects greater than exist in the manufacture of larger sizes. The production of small sizes during the operation, prior to the time when the product reaches the warehouse, is largely contingent upon accidents, breakage, and poor results, rather than to design. It should also be thoroughly understood that the cost of production, both here and abroad, is figured and can be figured only as so much per foot, irrespective of size produced, and that a tariff, to be properly and uniformly protective, should be a flat rate per foot on all sizes, irrespective of dimension. The German tariff, which is credited with having been made very carefully and after a scientific consideration of all the problems involved, abandoned the method of having a graduated scale and adopted a flat tariff, which they impose on all plate glass, irrespective of size. Austria and Spain have similar tariffs. I believe the gentleman who preceded me stated that all tariffs were graded the same as that in force in this country. Italy and France still have tariffs based upon a scale of schedules in which, however, there is only a slight difference in the rate of duty, so that we think it should be recognized that the present schedules have been outgrown. The Republican platform had no thought of plate glass or any other individual American product; it laid down a broad principle, which fully meets-as all broad principles should-the conditions surrounding our industry, i. e., that the rate of duty should represent substantially the difference in cost between domestic and foreign production plus a reasonable margin of profit. There is no way to apply this principle to the plate-glass industry except by imposing a flat rate which shall apply to all plate glass, irrespective of size. The character of the imports that have taken place during the past eleven years very graphically illustrates the failure of the Dingley tariff to meet the principle laid down by the last Republican platform. We are ready to have a reduction in the 35-cents-per-foot rate of duty if the principle of a flat rate be adopted. The imports show that at 8 cents and 10 cents per foot duty they have grown enormously during the life of the Dingley tariff, and that while the imports for the five-tenth-foot bracket, paying 22 cents per foot duty, have not increased proportionately, our glass is still on a competitive basis with foreign glass at that rate, and that a new tariff imposing a flat rate of duty should, in no event, be less than 224 cents per foot. In |