PARAGRAPH 451-BOOTS AND SHOES.

Also the enterprise and method of our merchants in opening special American stores helped to attract the trade for the time being. This is only temporary. They are fast adopting our machinery and methods of all kinds, so that it will be hard for us to hold our trade in these 87 countries permanently, and if the duty is reduced they will appear in our country with such low-priced goods made in our style with our improved machinery and lasts that in order to hold our trade we must necessarily reduce our prices of labor to their basis.

I am more than ever convinced that it would be very unwise to reduce the present low tariff on leather and shoes.

Very respectfully,

CHARLES N. PROUTY.

BRIEF OF THE W. L. DOUGLAS SHOE CO., BROCKTON, MASS.

Congressman ANDREW J. PETERS,

BROCKTON, MASS., February 14, 1913.

Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Hon. W. L. Douglas, who is at present in the South, writes me that the brief presented the Ways and Means Committee by the National Shoe Manufacturers' Association does not indicate the amount of protection offered the shoe manufacturers on a per-pair basis, and for that reason he directed that we should prepare and forward you a list showing the amount of protection thus afforded.

We have gone over the principal items entering into the production of a shoe and have calculated the protective duty on a per-pair basis, which we herewith submit:

The items on which the duty is calculated and the rate of duty follows: Upper leather, 15 per cent; patent leather, 27 cents per pound and 8 per cent; cotton linings, 23 cents and 4 cents per square yard; sole leather, 5 per cent; cotton thread, 6 cents per 1,200 yards; silk thread, $1.50 per pound; hooks and eyelets, 45 per cent; linen thread, 38 per cent; cotton thread, 6 cents per 1,200 yards; tacks, cent per M; nails, cent per pound; slugging wire, 1 cents per pound; lacings, 15 per cent and 25 cents per pound; cartons, 45 per cent; webbing, 60 per cent.

These are the principal items entering into the cost of a shoe on which there is a protective duty. There are various other items included in the National Manufacturers' brief which we have purposely omitted, as they have very little effect on the cost of production of a pair of shoes and for that reason were left out.

The shoes on which the duty is given in this letter are all men's shoes.

Mr. Douglas is quite confident that this information will be of value to you in your arguments before the Ways and Means Committee.

If there is any further information along this line that we can give you, we shall be very pleased to furnish it.

Yours, very truly,

FRANK L. ERSKINE, Secretary to W. L. Douglas.

PARAGRAPH 451-BOOTS AND SHOES.

BRIEF OF WALTER H. CREAMER, LYNN, MASS.

Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD,

Chairman Ways and Means Committee.

LYNN, MASS., January 30, 1913.

DEAR SIR: As a citizen of the shoe manufacturing city of Lynn, and a Massachusetts Democrat, of perhaps some standing, I wish to protest against the assumption that Massachusetts Democrats generally are for a protective tariff when local industries are in question, or that their adherence to the Democratic doctrine of a tariff for revenue only, is lip service alone. I yield to none in my desire to see my city and State prosperous, but I wish to go on record as in favor of putting shoes on the free list. It is true that this duty is economically harmless. It neither raises prices nor lends itself to monopoly, as our manufacturers do compete with each other. But, neither is it necessary to the welfare of the shoe industry, which, competing abroad without such an economic crutch and exporting eighty times our annual imports, certainly should not need it to compete at home. Have our manufacturers no pride, no selfreliance, that they are so mentally befogged on this issue? The assertion that the abolition of this duty would mean wage reduction is effectively answered by the fact that the reduction of the duty from 25 per cent to 10 per cent was followed by wage increase. Do not our labor leaders know that wages in the shoe industry are regulated by the general wage level in the country and not by foreign wage levels? Do they not also know that high priced labor per day, may be, and frequently is, the cheaper labor per unit of work, because it is intelligent and contented labor. Do they not also know that the overhead expenses of our manufacturers are the cheapest in the world? These are the reasons we do not need such an artificial thing as a tariff tax to keep our present wage level in the shoe industry, or for our shoe manufacturers to compete at home as well as abroad. Take off this tax, and teach them not to be afraid of shadows or bogie men, and I venture to prophesy that two years from now no one will ask for its imposition again. And really, is there any better way of divorcing government and business, than for business not to ask government favors when it can be avoided?

Yours, truly,

I am sending a copy of this to Congressman Peters.

WALTER H. CREAMER,

W. H. C.

BROCKTON (MASS.) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OPPOSE REDUCTION OF TARIFF ON BOOTS AND SHOES.

BROCKTON, MASS., January 27, 1913.

Whereas the prosperity of Brockton and its citizens depends in a large measure on the manufacture of boots and shoes; and

Whereas a further reduction in the tariff on boots and shoes would tend to interfere with the steady work of thousands of our citizens; and

Whereas we believe that if the tariff were taken off boots and shoes Brockton would lose a share of that industry to other countries:

Be it resolved, That we, assembled in a regular meeting of the Brockton Chamber of Commerce, representing the business interests and working people of the community, do hereby ask and pray that no reduction from the present duty on boots and shoes be made; and

Be it further resolved, That a copy of these resolutions shall be spread upon the records of this organization and one copy shall be sent to Congressman Augustus P. Gardner that he may use it before the committee from Congress that will hear this subject.

BROCKTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
A. H. ANDREWS, President.
WM. N. HARDY, Secretary.

PARAGRAPH 451-BOOTS AND SHOES.

RESOLUTIONS OF THE LYNN (MASS.) SHOE MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION.

LYNN, MASS., February 12, 1913. Whereas a bill is pending before Congress to place boots and shoes on the free list; and Whereas the boot and shoe industry of the United States would have to compete with the product of foreign countries where boots and shoes are made under decidedly lower labor cost and where shoe machinery of the same type as used in the shoe factories of the United States is rapidly being installed, it becomes absolutely necessary that the boot and shoe industry of this country have some measure of protection to offset the difference in the cost of labor as paid in foreign countries and the cost of labor of American shoe workers, as well as the difference of manufacturing costs and overhead expense in foreign countries as compared with those in the United States; and

Whereas we thoroughly believe the placing of boots and shoes on the free list would prove unwise, radical, unwarranted, uneconomic, inexcusable, and would controvert alike the protective and revenue principles of tariff legislation: therefore be it Resolved, That we, the special committee appointed by the Lynn Shoe Manufacfacturers' Association, which represents a business of $30,000,000 per year, employing approximately 14,000 shoe workers in a city which produces the largest number of pairs of shoes of any shoe center of the United States, fully realizing that the present tariff is a necessary protection for the highly competitive American boot and shoe industry, strongly protest against the removal or any reduction of the present tariff on boots and shoes and thus avert the great danger to workmen, manufacturers, and the boot and shoe industry of the country.

P. J. HAINEY,

Pres. P. J. Hainey Shoe Co.
ALBERT N. BLAKE,

Of Watson Shoe Co.

FRANK P. ABORN,

Of C. H. Aborn & Co.
ARTHUR A. SOUTH,
Of Brophy Bros. Shoe Co.
JAMES M. CAUNT,

Of Mitchell-Caunt Co.

PROTEST OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS AND FOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF HAVERHILL, MASS.

WASHINGTON, D. C., February 1, 1913.

MY DEAR MR. ROPER: I beg to inclose you herewith a telegram from the financial secretary of the Superintendents and Foremen's Association of Haverhill, Mass.

I shall be much obliged if you will have it inserted in the permanent record of the hearings on the boot and shoe paragraph in Schedule N.

Sincerely, yours,

DANIEL C. ROPER, Esq.,

Clerk, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D.C.

A. P. GARDNER,

[Inclosure-Telegram.]

A. P. GARDNER.

HAVERHILL, MASS., January 29, 1913.

Care Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C.

Superintendent and Foremen's Association of Haverhill protests any reduction in tariff on boots and shoes.

L. O. PHILBRICK, Financial Secretary.

PARAGRAPH 451-BOOTS AND SHOES.

BRIEF OF J. E. & W. G. WESSON, WORCESTER, MASS., IN RE DUTY ON BOOTS AND SHOES.

Mr. OSCAR UNDERWOOD,

WORCESTER, MASS., January 25, 1913.

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

DEAR MR. UNDERWOOD: We know you will appreciate any facts that we can give your committee on the labor cost of shoes in this country and England. Other European countries are less than England.

Three years ago we visited England and called at a factory at Worcester; we got the information from the manager of the factory. He gave me the cost of labor in the factory outside of the office to average for every one employed-men, women, and children at £1 a week, less than $5. Our payroll, outside of the office, averages between $11 and $12 per week, for each man, woman, and child employed. Leather and all that goes to make a shoe are about the same cost in England as here. The English factories have every improved machine that we have, and the workmen are as efficient as our own people.

The average cost of labor to the total cost of shoes is 25 per cent, and you will see with the wages paid in England it must be less than 15 per cent. We need the little protection of 10 per cent, the present duty on shoes. The prosperity of this country is due to the prosperity of the working people. I have manufactured shoes over 40 years and know that the workmen in shoe factories need all the wages they get, and it would be a great injustice to every workman connected with our industry to put shoes on the free list, and would benefit no one in this country.

Kindly give the shoe workman careful consideration in the revision of tariff on shoes. Very respectfully,

J. E. & W. G. WESSON,
J. E. WESSON.

BRIEF OF GEORGE R. JONES, PRESIDENT OF THE GEORGE R. JONES CO.

The effect of the removal of the duty upon shoes will first be felt, I am sure, by the small manufacturer.

Reports of the United States census indicate that the number of establishments manufacturing shoes in this country decreased 16 per cent between the years 1900 and 1910. The decrease has been due, in my opinion, to the keen competition now prevailing here throughout the industry, a competition hardly equalled in any other line and resulting in the survival only of the most efficient manufacturers.

If the tariff on shoes is removed or is reduced to a point where the foreign product, with admittedly a lower labor cost, can compete freely with us in our own markets, a still greater handicap must be met by the small manufacturer, and the number of establishments will be still further reduced.

The large manufacturer can perhaps stand the losses involved, in the readjustment of conditions, gradually reducing his labor cost to a point corresponding with the same item abroad. He alone, if anyone, can survive the increased competition. He can buy his supplies more cheaply because in larger quantities and at favorable times, when the small manufacturer with a limited capital can hardly keep ahead of his production. He has the advantage of economies in manufacturing, attending, as you know, a large organization, which override the loss of individuals or temporary conditions. He can employ experts in every department of his business. He can maintain a large selling staff to demonstrate the superior merit of the domestic product as against a cheaper article of foreign manufacture. He can advertise extensively in a market reaching throughout the entire country. He can establish factories abroad to manufacture for him the relatively few grades of shoes in which foreign competition at the time is fiercest, operating here to advantage in all other grades.

In all of the above respects the small manufacturer with limited capital may find himself decidedly at a loss, when there shall be added to the competitors in this country with whom he must cope the competition of the rest of the world.

With the elimination of the small manufacturer the tendency to combination must grow, and the resulting consolidations of capital will dictate prices and terms regardless of domestic competition. This process is seen to-day in some other industries where large corporations compete even in foreign countries at the expense of the home market and laborer.

GEORGE R. JONES Co.,
GEO. R. JONES, President.

PARAGRAPH 451-BOOTS AND SHOES.

BRIEF OF UNION LOCK-STITCH CO., EAST BOSTON, MASS.

Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD,

EAST BOSTON, MASS., January 31, 1913.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: I have been interested in the reports of the hearings before your committee on shoe duties. I have been connected with the shoe-machinery industry for 30 years and I can not say that I agree with our shoe manufacturers is to the harm which might result from the reduction of the duty.

The large wages which are paid our shoe workers in this country are because they have been in the past most efficient. I have seen shoe stitchers in England working for 48. per week whose product did not begin to figure as well as the $15 per week shoe stitchers in Lynn.

The great burden, in my opinion, which the shoe industry has to carry to-day is the tax which they are subjected to by the United Shoe Machinery Co. through the tying clauses in their leases. It absolutely shuts out competition in machines which mean the most to the shoe industry.

The United Shoe Machinery Co's. much advertised system of careful service, by which they keep an expert in touch with all of their machines continually, has destroyed the efficiency of the operator and has taken away the ambition and initiative of the individual-two things which made the shoe industry of this country what it is. The United Shoe Machinery Co. claim to have the most efficient line of shoe macinery in the world. Now, if this is true, why do they need any protection? We should have free shoe machinery. Your committee should not take the duty off of shoes and then compel the shoe people to enter the world's field on the basis of efficiency without giving the industry the benefit of free shoe machinery, so that they may buy the most efficient machines and work on an equal basis with other competitors. To be absolutely consistent there is nothing your committee can do other than to remove the duty on shoe machinery.

There is another item which I hope will receive the careful attention of your committee the one of sewing machine needles. The Excelsior Needle Co., of Torrington, Conn., controls 75 per cent of the needle business of this country and abroad. They have three factories here, one in Coventry, England, and one in Aix-la-Chapelle, Germany.

Years ago they paid enormous dividends in cash and stock, so that an original investment of $100,000 was eventually capitalized at $3,000,000. Their English and German factories are the largest in those countries and have been fully equipped with American machinery.

To illustrate the inequality of prices, will say that needles made by them for McKay sewing machines, which are used largely in the shoe industry, sell in England for $10 per 1,000, while here the same thing made by these people sells for $16 per 1,000. In view of the fact that they have driven out all competition abroad, it should be evident to your committee that they now need no protection here and needles should be put on the free list.

Yours, very truly,

C. S. LUITWIELER, Treasurer.

BRIEF OF UTZ & DUNN CO., ROCHESTER, N. Y.

ROCHESTER, N. Y., January 25, 1913.

Hon. HENRY G. DANFORTH, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: There will be a hearing for the Ways and Means Committee on January 29, 1913, on Schedule N of the Payne-Aldrich tariff bill, under which schedule is listed the item of boots and shoes.

There is now a duty of 10 and 15 per cent on men's and women's shoes, and we judge that it is intended to reduce the duty on these articles still further. If the duty on boots and shoes is abolished, it will prove a very disastrous proceeding so far as the boot and shoe industry of this country is concerned, and consequently the National Boot & Shoe Manufacturers' Association has appointed a committee, which will appear before the Ways and Means Committee on that date, with statistics and argument to endeavor to demonstrate that the present duty is already low and that a further reduction would be a serious blow to this industry.