PARAGRAPH 423-BRUSHES.

Mr. FORDNEY. That is what the gentleman asked you.

Mr. RAINEY. No; I did not ask him anything of the kind.
Mr. FORDNEY. Yes you did.

Mr. HOLTON. I do not think it was put in there to bring it about. I did not understand the question. I do not understand that was the purpose of putting it into the Payne law.

Mr. RAINEY. I did not ask any such question.

Mr. LONGWORTH. The duty has been in force nearly 100 years. Mr. FORDNEY. If under the rates fixed in the same tariff law brushes can be made in this country without any higher-priced labor than it is, don't you think that duty ought to be increased so that a better class of labor can be employed?

Mr. HOLTON. I am frank to say that there is difference enough between the prices paid here and abroad that they can.

Mr. FORDNEY. Then the tariff law has absolutely nothing to do with this question of employment of child labor, has it?

Mr. HOLTON. All in the world.

Mr. FORDNEY. All in the world, and yet you say

Mr. LONGWORTH (interposing). Why did not you come here a few years ago? Why did not the representatives of your industry come here in 1848?

Now

Mr. HOLTON. We were not made cognizant of this fact until 1912. Mr. FORNDEY. This duty has been imposed for 80 years. be careful in your statements.

Mr. HILL. You say the effect of your proposition would be largely to increase the importation of the foreign brushes. I will read a telegraphic dispatch from London, November 16, published in the New York Tribune, referring to similar work on other articles in London:

"This testimony, which met with a hostile reception from the trades unionists at the inquiry, was hardly substantiated by a direct or a limited company, who said that of the 270 women outworkers employed by his firm, 20 per cent earned under 25 cents a week, 85 per cent under 50 cents, 21 per cent under 75 cents, 13 per cent under $1, 7 per cent under $1.25, 2 per cent under $1.50, and 2 per cent under $1.75. The highest price they paid for carding was 20 cents per great gross and the lowest 10 cents per great gross.'

The final conclusion of the dispatch, and I will put it in the record, but I will read the last clause:

Other witnesses pointed out that the majority of the women engaged in this class of work entered into it with the object of augmenting their husbands' earnings, but the general tenor of the revelations has created quite a sensation in England, where there Is ever a tendency to cry "Shame" when the subject of sweated labor is under notice, but precious little is ever done to remedy the evils.

Now, which is the worst condition, on the other side of the water or here?

Mr. RAINEY. All of which does not amount to anything.

Mr. HILL. Which is the worst condition, Mr. Holton, 2 cents a day, or

Mr. HOLTON. Is it a similar industry?

Mr. RAINEY. All of which does not prove that the conditions are not deplorable in the protected industry we are considering.

PARAGRAPH 423-BRUSHES.

Mr. HILL. Everybody regrets it, but the conditions are far worse. Don't you see, as you just admit, by cutting the duty in two, from 40 to 20, it would tend to put the work here into a worse condition than on the other side?

Mr. RAINEY. You said it would be done by Chinese labor.

Mr. HILL. I never said anything of the kind. I do not pay any attention at all to what you say. I am talking for the record.

Which is the better, really, as a humanitarian proposition?

Mr. HOLTON. I want you to state if that applies to the same industry.

Mr. HILL. Well, a similar industry. You will find worse conditions in Austria and Bohemia-far worse conditions than any. Which is the better, as a humanitarian proposition?

Mr. HOLTON. I do not see that either one is very desirable.
Mr. LONGWORTH. How long have you been in this business?
Mr. HOLTON. Twenty-two years.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Have you ever appeared before the committee before, in which a reduction has been asked?

Mr. HOLTON. Never in my life.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Why haven't you?

Mr. HOLTON. Why, one reason, I did not think I was a big enough

factor.

Mr. LONGWORTH. You say you suddenly realized it. And yet in speaking of this duty you bring before us these pictures of these iniquities. You have been in this business for 30 years and have never been

Mr. HOLTON. I have not.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Well, 20 years or 22 years, and you have never been before a committee before, either Democratic or Republican, advocating a reduction in this tariff? You have been singularly derelict in your humanitarian duty.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, let us not get into an argument with the witness.

Mr. FORDNEY. I never would engage in any argument with the witness about such a thing if it were not brought in here by the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. LONGWORTH. He has brought this in himself. He admits that this thing has been going on 22 years, yet he has not brought it to the committee.

Mr. FORDNEY. Did you not consult the gentleman from Illinois about this industry before you presented these photographs?

Mr. HOLTON. I never spoke to the gentleman from Illinois in my

life.

Mr. FORDNEY. How did he happen to know you had such photographs in your possession, because he asked you to bring up the pictures?

Mr. RAINEY. I will answer that. I will say to the gentleman from Michigan that I knew he ought to have them here whether he had them or not.

Mr. HOLTON. This was brought to my attention by the exhibit at Twenty-third Street and Sixth Avenue, New York, where the Child Labor Committee had in charge these various conditions which have

PARAGRAPH 423-BRUSHES.

been shown, and they had an exhibit there of this particular branch of it.

Mr. RAINEY. When was this brought to your attention, this exhibit you mention having seen in New York?

Mr. HOLTON. In the latter part of December, 1912, or early in January.

Mr. RAINEY. This is the first opportunity you have had to present it to a committee of Congress?

Mr. HOLTON. The very first.

Mr. FORDNEY. You have been in the business 21 years without finding it out?

The CHAIRMAN. The witness states the first time it was brought to his attention was last December, and he has come down here now and presented it to the committee.

Mr. PAYNE. This is a part of the investigation by that commission in our State, wasn't it, last November? Last fall these facts were developed to your knowledge?

Mr. HOLTON. No, not to my knowledge. I did not know this until the latter part of December, 1912. It must have existed before that. Mr. PAYNE. Well, the commission reported it and it was published in the paper, wasn't it, or at least the commission made an examination and did not report and the newspapers published something about it?

Mr. HOLTON. The first time it came to my attention through the public press or anything else was this exhibit.

Mr. PAYNE. That is what I say, the public press.

Mr. HOLTON. I say it did not come to my attention through the public press.

Mr. PAYNE. I call your attention to another statement by the public press, at that time, that the worst discovery they had made was with regard to the workers in binder-twine factories, the International Harvester Co. That was under the free clause in the tariff. Perhaps you can fix that up with the gentleman from Illinois and blame that on the tariff.

Mr. LONGWORTH. I understand there are brushes made in my own State, the State of Ohio. Do you claim that that condition exists there?

Mr. HOLTON. I do not.

Mr. RAINEY. You do not know?

Mr. LONGWORTH. Do you know whether or not it does?

Mr. HOLTON. I do not know.

Mr. RAINEY. I wish you would read from this report of the National Child Labor Committee which you have of any other families in their report, with reference to children employed in the manufacture of brushes or any other conditions of the brush manufacture.

Mr. HOLTON. The only reference I have not read is on page 42: Five children of this family work at brushes, while a sixth works in a laundry. The little 5-year old on the right is very deft at this close work, though her eyes seem to trouble her. Martha, aged 14, is not attending school "because she has no shoes."

The father, a laborer, is out of work. He complains that there is little money in brush making.

The pay for filling the pads for 12 brushes (each having 500 holes, 6,000 holes in all) with 6,000 tiny bristles is 40 cents. One cent for filling in 150 bristles.

Photo taken February 5, 1912, at 8 p. m.

PARAGRAPH 423-BRUSHES,

Mr. RAINEY. That describes the photograph you have in this book? Mr. HOLTON. On the opposite page.

Mr. RAINEY. Is there anything in there about the number of licensed and unlicensed houses?

Mr. HOLTON. On page 4.

Mr. RAINEY. Did you read that?

Mr. HOLTON. I read that, and page 5 also.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Do you claim that a reduction of the tariff from 40 per cent to 20 per cent will change this condition? Do you make the claim that the reduction of the tariff from 40 per cent to 20 per cent will wipe out this industry of New York City?

Mr. RAINEY. One of you gentlemen over there, I do not remember who it was, recently said it would result in the employment of Chinese labor abroad, and the shipping in of these goods made by Chinese labor, and that certainly would dispense with the child's labor.

Mr. FORDNEY. I leave it to the record. No man has made such an utterance on this side of the House about Chinese labor. The gentleman from Illinois is just as near correct as he generally is in any

statement.

Mr. RAINEY. The record will show that he made that statement. Mr. LONGWORTH. What have you to say on that subject?

Mr. HOLTON. I think the only thing that will stop it is legislation to cover it.

Mr. LONGWORTH. The tariff has nothing to do with it, has it?
Mr. HOLTON. No.

Mr. FORDNEY. Then why do you present it here if you are talking about the tariff? What do you bring it here for?

Mr. LONGWORTH. You now say the tariff has nothing whatever to do with it. That satisfies me. Proceed.

Mr. RAINEY. I am glad that you are satisfied.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, gentlemen, we will proceed.

Mr. HOLTON. The popular-priced toothbrush is conceded to be one that retails for 25 cents. Brushes of this kind are being made in this country on the same machines, and I offer as an exhibit a brush (Exhibit C) made by the Celluloid Co. of Newark, N. J. This brush is quoted in the catalogue of the Celluloid Co. at $24 per gross, and will be sold at the price to anybody with money to purchase the same. This is the usual wholesale price for a brush retailing at 25 cents.

The bone brushes so generally used are in competition with these celluloid goods, but still represent a big percentage of the business. One of the big selling 25-cent bone tooth brushes is the Prophylactic brush made in Florence, Mass., of which I will submit you a sample (Exhibit D) and draw your attention to the remarks in our brief where we show that this brush is being offered in Canada for less than it is offered to the American dealer.

I also offer you a brush (Exhibit E) known as the "Rubberset❞ toothbrush, made in Newark, N. J., by still another process of manufacture, known as the "rubberset." This brush also sells for 25 cents at retail. This particular brush was bought at a store in Washington last night.

Both of these companies are spending thousands of dollars annually in the United States, advertising these brushes to the American

PARAGRAPH 423-BRUSHES.

public, and it is but fair to assume that with this expenditure of money these brushes can be marketed at very satisfactory profits.

It is necessary to note also that bone brushes made abroad are nearly all made of bones imported from North and South America, the United States furnishing about 50 per cent of the product in raw bones, which are returned to this country in the manufactured state. The popular-priced hairbrush is 50 cents or less. I offer you as an exhibit a brush (Exhibit F) bought in the open market made by the Grand Rapids Brush Co., which brush they sell at $3.19 per dozen laid down in New York, and can be retailed for 40 cents. This brush is a machine-made brush, and it is impossible to import a brush to compete with this in quality, appearance and price.

Also as an exhibit, I offer you a military brush (Exhibit G), made by a cement process, which is patented in this country. This brush is made in Cohoes, N. Y., and is sold for $3.92 per dozen, and we have not been able to duplicate it in any foreign market at a price even approaching it.

There is some competition on the higher grade of brushes, but in order to show the committee at what disadvantage we labor, I would respectfully draw your attention to the fact that bristles are almost wholly imported and bear but a nominal duty of 7.5 cents per pound, under paragraph 424.

Brushes of the higher class take the better grade of bristles and average from $3.50 to $5 per pound, which makes the duty on bristles to the American manufacturer on an average of but about 2 per cent.

The woods of which these better grade brushes are made are all high woods, such as ebony, rosewood, and mahogany, imported in the log from South America, East and West Indies, and Africa, and are brought into this country duty free under paragraph 712.

When brushes of this same grade are brought into the United States the importer is compelled to pay 40 per cent on the wood used in the back and 40 per cent on the bristles which are drawn into it, as well as the same advance on the cost of foreign labor necessary to produce the finished article.

Formerly the question of labor entered very materially into this matter and there is no question but that in those days there was an advantage to the foreign manufacturer, but that advantage has been lost by the introduction of machines and the rise in wages abroad, so that it costs them practically as much abroad to-day as it does to make brushes here.

In the Grand Rapids brush statement (see tariff hearing, Doc. No. 1505, 60th Cong., 2d sess., p. 6441) this manufacturer claims that 25 per cent of the cost of the manufactured article is for the bristles and 15 per cent for wires, handles, and backs, showing that material enters into this item of cost to the total extent of 20 per cent.

Assuming that their statements are true, but we believe that these percentages of materials are still higher, this leaves a percentage of 60 per cent for the item of labor alone, and the American manufacturer has sensibly dwelt on the subject of the high wages paid to labor in the United States; but where the machines are employed the labor item is greatly reduced.