Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

PARAGRAPH 451-LEATHER.

Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, M. C.,

PHILADELPHIA, January 18, 1913.

Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: We respectfully ask to call the attention to your honorable committee "Tariff act, 1909, section 451, dressed upper and all other leather, calfskins tanned, or tanned and dressed, kangaroo, sheep, and goat skins (including lamb and kid skins), dressed and finished, other skins, and bookbinders' calfskins, all the foregoing not specially provided for in this section, 15 per centum ad valorem.

[ocr errors]

"Section 452. Bags, baskets, belts, satchels, card cases, pocketbooks, jewel boxes, portfolios, and other boxes and cases, made wholly of or in chief value, not specially provided for in this section, 40 per centum ad valorem."

Que company manufactures sheep leather largely, and again manufactures hatters' leather from the sheep leather. According to these two paragraphs sheep leather now pays duty 15 per centum ad valorem. Hatters' leather being manufactured from sheep leather 40 per centum ad valorem. We respectfully ask that this duty be retained in the new tariff bill. It is very important that American manufacturers of sheep leather and hatters' leather should have this protection so that they can continue to successfully compete with foreign manufacturers of these goods.

The American manufacturers are handicapped by the much higher cost of labor as compared to cost of labor in Europe. We estimate this higher cost not less than 40 per cent. Again, the tanning and coloring materials which must be used to produce these goods are at present paying a duty $7 per ton on sumac, and 30 per cent ad valorem on aniline dyes.

We hope that your committee will fix the duty on sheep leather as now, 15 per cent; on hatters leather (manufactures of leather), 40 per cent.

Any material reduction or removal of duty altogether we fear very much would cripple this industry in the United States. If it is absolutely necessary to have a revision of tariff downward, we would suggest that this be done very gradually, so that American manufacturers would not be seriously affected. In that event we would suggest duty on sheep leather 14 per cent. Duty on manufactures of sheep leather 38 per cent.

Should your committee desire any further information on this subject, the writer will make it convenient to come to Washington to appear before your committee at any time you may designate.

Respectfully submitted.

We are, yours, very truly,

DRUEDING BROS Co.,
CHAS. C. DRUEDING, Treasurer.

BRIEF OF THE MOROCCO MANUFACTURERS' NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ON GLAZED KID, ETC.

THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE:

The Morocco Manufacturers' National Association, representing no combination, but 34 independent and competing manufacturing concerns, employing 12,000 persons, begs to submit for your consideration data pertaining to the manufacture of glazed kid, mat kid, and colored kid manufactured from goatskins.

The present rate of duty is 15 per cent, which we consider not more than adequate to protect our industry.

Taking the average cost of goatskins per dozen in the raw state as $6.50 per dozen. Based upon the 1910 census, showing years 1899, 1904, 1909, and 1912, the declared average value of raw goatskins is $6.52 per dozen.

The average cost of the finished product is approximately $9 per dozen.
Taking the average cost of the finished product as a basis of calculation:

Cost of the raw material.

Cost of labor.....

Cost of tanning materials..

Cost of manufacturing expense..

Total........

Per cent.

72. 22

13. 89

8.33

5.56

100.00

The foreign manufacturer has an advantage over American manufacturers in the purchase of raw material by reason of being closer to the point of origin-the large percentage of goatskins grow in the Eastern Hemisphere-and the skins coming from

PARAGRAPH 451-LEATHER.

South America are principally shipped via Europe, thereby effecting a saving in freight, insurance, interest, and handling amounting approximately to 3 per cent, equal to 2.17 per cent of the total cost of the finished product.

The cost of labor to the foreign manufacturer is about one-half of that paid for the same labor in America, effecting a saving of 6.94 per cent of the total cost of the finished product.

The foreign manufacturer also has some advantage in the purchase of chemicals which enter into the manufacture of glazed kid which are subject to duty in America, such as glycerine, arsenic, bichromate of potash, bichromate of soda, aniline colors, dye woods, hyposulphide of soda, and sulphide of sodium, and many others, amounting to approximately 12 per cent, equal to 1.42 per cent of the total cost of the finished product.

Manufacturing expenses 333 per cent less, equal to 1.85 per cent of the total cost of the finished product.

The foreign manufacturer's advantage is:

[blocks in formation]

Twenty-five years ago goat-skin tanning or manufacturing was an infant industry in America. Its market was dominated by French and German manufacturers. The best grades of kid cost then from 70 to 80 cents per square foot, or a general average cost of from 30 to 40 cents per square foot, since which time, through the perfecting of a mineral tannage and protection, the American manufacturer has regained our home market. Through the competition of the 34 manufacturing concerns the price has been reduced; the best grades of kid to-day sell at from 30 to 35 cents per square foot, or a general average of 18 cents per square foot.

Up to five years ago the American manufacturer dominated the world's market, enjoying a great domestic and foreign demand. Since, however, owing to the American proclivity to extravagance and love of novelty, the domestic consumption has been greatly decreased through the use of patent and fancy leathers and various fabrics, such as cloths, velvets, silks, satins, and canvas, leaving now a domestic demand chiefly for the cheaper grades. Fortunately, the export demand has been for the better grades, enabling us to continue business, but in a lessened percentage of the world's volume.

The decrease in value from 1909 to 1912 is 16.15 per cent; the decrease in number from 1909 to 1912 is 6.08 per cent.

The English, French, and German manufacturers have adopted all new American machinery, send each year experts to America to glean new ideas and secure expert American workmen to teach their employees, and during the same time (or for the past five years) have more than doubled their production, tanning now approximately 37.50 per cent of the world's supply of goatskins.

Now the crux of the situation is this: The foreign manufacturers have a demand for the better grades beyond their ability to supply, but only a limited demand for their cheaper grades, because cheap shoes in foreign countries are principally made of cowhides, calf or sheep skins. Not having a market for their cheaper grades, the increase of their production has been thus limited.

Should the present duty on glazed kid be removed, the foreign manufacturers would soon, because of lower costs, secure and dominate the American market for cheaper grades and through increased production hold their own markets for better grades, thus seriously hurting our industry, to the detriment of some 12,000 employees, who now receive annually $6,000,000 to $7,000,000 in wages.

MOROCCO MANUFACTURERS' NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
GEORGE H. MCNEELY, President.

CHAS. A. REYNOLDS, Chairman Executive Committee.
LAIRD H. SIMONS, Secretary.

PARAGRAPH 451-BOOTS AND SHOES.

BRIEF OF SALOMON & PHILLIPS, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD,

NEW YORK, N. Y., February 6, 1913.

Chairman, Committee Ways and Means, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Permit us to call your attention to the fact that on account of the duty at present placed on the articles known under the leather schedule as sealskins and moroccos, which come under the term of "Leather not specially provided for" at 15 per cent duty, this duty has prohibited competition in these articles.

For that reason the use of sealskins has been discontinued in such articles as shoes and slippers wherein this article was very largely used in years gone by.

Such articles as hair seal, goat and calf, by reason of the duty placed on them at the present time, can not be imported in this country, and these articles are being made by one or two concerns who practically control the output.

On account of freight charges and other necessary expenses combined with the duty, places the domestic leather in a noncompetitive class.

The 15 per cent duty on this leather is practically prohibitive and you can glean from statistics, if examined, that practically nothing in the way of sealskins has come into this country since this duty has been in effect.

We think that a reduction of duty should be made on all finished leather for the best interests of all concerned.

We do not ask for the removal of duty on goods which should be protected, but what we would like is a competitive market, reasonably competitive, and no doubt the idea of your committee is to at least have fair competition and not have the whole trade gathered up by a few protected manufacturers.

If it is the idea to reduce the general line of leather, we hardly think it fair to leave a clause which will retain certain leathers at the present rate. Respectfully submitted.

BOOTS AND SHOES.

SALOMON & PHILLIPS.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN F. TOBIN, PRESIDENT BOOT AND SHOE WORKERS' UNION.

The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.

Mr. TOBIN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, it appears to me that the honorable gentlemen of the committee, as well as the gentlemen who have been presenting this case, have dwelt entirely too much upon the retail price of shoes in their effort to bring this question before you forcibly.

A very large percentage of the shoes sold abroad are sold by manufacturers retailing them from their own stores in foreign countries, which enables them to get the profit that usually goes to the manufacturers plus the profit which usually goes to the retailer. In this way they have been able to invade the foreign markets.

Very few of the American-made shoes are sold in the competitive market in foreign countries because the retailers in those countries have a prejudice against American shoes and prefer to buy the shoes that they have been accustomed to purchasing.

This whole question of the proposed removal of the tariff on shoes is based upon the supposition that the consumer is going to be benefited in proportion to the amount of reduction in the tariff. I maintain, in behalf of the organized shoe workers of this country, that no such result will follow from the entire abolition of the tariff.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tobin, that is not the first proposition. The first proposition is for the Government to get some revenue. The other is a secondary proposition, that the consumer may be benefited.

78959°-VOL 5-13-52

PARAGRAPH 451-BOOTS AND SHOES.

Mr. TOBIN. If the Government wants a revenue at the expense of the daily and weekly earnings of the shoe workers, in our loyalty to the Government we will yield a portion of our wages, but I do not believe that the voters of this country have registered their approval of a policy which takes the tariff off shoes and leaves the wage worker in the shoe trade of this country subject to that keenest of competition between manufacturers which prompts them to fix their wages at that level.

Bear in mind this fact that the shoe manufacturers of this country, fully two-thirds of them or more, are running factories which they call open factories in which they set up the contention that they are going to run their business in their own way and without any interference from any outside source, meaning in plain English that they will make their conditions of labor, the wages which they pay, based upon what they themselves believe to be a fair rate.

The gentlemen who believe in the open-shop policy so-called, in their zeal to manage their business in their own way, sometimesyes, frequently, if not always-overstep the bounds and go to the extent of managing and directing the interests and welfare of the men and the women who work for them.

I have not the slightest objection in the world to any shoe manufacturer, or any other kind of a manufacturer, running his business in his own way. But I object most strenuously to him managing my business and my domestic affairs and my standards of living for me. I may be inferior to him in my ability to manage my business, but I want to manage it even if I mismanage it. And the large manufacturers to-day, who are operating what are called union shops, make scales of wages with the union, with arbitration as a safety valve. What I mean by that is that they will make their scale of wages with the union by mutual agreement, sitting down across the table, and if they fail to agree then they submit their differences to a board of arbitration, and the decision of that board is final and binding upon all. Those manufacturers and those workmen who are employed in such factories are subject to the competition which comes from those gentlemen who operate their factories in their own way and without any interference from any outside sources. Those manufacturers with whom we deal are obliged to meet that competition, and in making our wage scale we are obliged to take into account the wages paid in so-called open shops.

If this tariff is removed, I maintain there will be no reduction in the retail price of shoes but there may be a substantial reduction in wages. Even if the manufacturer does not suffer any impairment of his profits, advantage will be taken of that argument as a reason for reducing wages. That is the thing we fear, and the organized shoe workers will have to measure their wages by that general reduction which would follow from that excuse.

I have prepared and have here a table by which I am going to try to show you gentlemen why I base my conclusions that there will be no reduction at all in the retail price of shoes. I ask you to follow me closely in these prices which I will enumerate so that you may possibly understand what I am driving at, and if not I will be pleased to answer any questions.

PARAGRAPH 451-BOOTS AND SHOES.

The present wholesale price of a pair of shoes for which the dealer pays 75 cents is $1 as a retail price. The retail price of shoes is fixed by the retail shoe dealer in multiples of 25 cents and nothing less on the cheaper grades of shoes. On the next grade in multiples of 50 cents, and in the next grade a dollar, and the next grade higher still to $2. There are no cutting of figures less than 25 cents, so that the 75-cent shoe at wholesale is retailed for $1.

Removing the tariff on that shoe, which is a shoe made of bovine hide, which would be 74 cents, would make the cost of the shoe 67 cents, providing it is sold minus the tariff, and the retail price of that shoe for which the dealer pays 67 cents will be $1 and not 921 cents, as we suppose, if the tariff is abolished.

The next grade of shoe is 90 cents. The retail price of a shoe for which the dealer pays 90 cents is $1.25.

The removal of the tariff makes the price of the shoe at wholesale 81 cents. The retail price is still $1.25, because there is no breaking of that quarter. The price of that shoe would not be $1, because that would not yield the retailer a sufficient profit.

Now, bear in mind, that when we are talking about the margin which the retailer-the shoe dealer-apparently has, this fact ought to be taken into consideration, that the retailers are not getting rich. They have a very precarious existence. Very few of them are successful.

Now, you go on down through the list with a shoe wholesaling at $1.15, $1.50, $1.90, $2.25, $2.60, $2.75, $3.15, $3.25, $3.75, and $4.25, showing the retail price in each case, and I will not burden you with all the figures in connection with the discounts on account of the removal of the tariff. It runs up on shoes retailing for $7, the present wholesale price of which is $4.25. Minus the duty, it would be $3.834, although the retail price would still be $7, and I draw your attention to what I allege to be a fact that in the higher grade shoes there is less likelihood of a reduction in the retail price because of the removal of the tariff. If it were probable that the retail price of shoes would be reduced in proportion to the entire amount of the tariff, we would, perhaps, have very little argument in support of our contention; but we have found by experience that the price of shoes at retail has been steadily advancing, due, first, to the increased cost of material and also to the increasing necessities of the retailers. They are looking for more money, and, of course, they must have more money to meet the higher rents and higher costs of living which we all suffer from.

The above wholesale prices may vary a few cents up or down with different manufacturers, but these will not change our figures as to retail prices.

In support of our conclusions relative to the fixed quantity of retail prices for shoes, I quote the following from the Boot and Shoe Recorder, published in Boston, Mass., under date of December 4, 1912, from the pen of Mr. E. W. Smith, president of R. P. Smith & Sons Co., Chicago, Ill., large jobbers of shoes:

That blind adherence to old traditions which has caused the average shoe retailer to ask no more than $5 for shoes which cost him $3.25 has been the ruin of many a merchant. It is as easy for a good salesman to get $5.50 as it is for him to get $5, especially

« AnteriorContinuar »