Alderman Ackerman succeeded in having another conference take place, which assembled February 27, but after exhaustive debate nothing was agreed upon. The employers insisting on a five years' agreement, while the employees would only accede to a three years' agreement, the employers made the following counter proposition as to the question of working hours, viz: In shops where nine and eight and one-half hours constitute a day's work hours of work are to be reduced to eight hours at once. Where more than eight and one-half hours are in vogue hours are to be reduced to eight and one-half hours per day, and after July 1, 1907, to eight hours per day. This proposition also did not meet with approval, and the conference was therefore discontinued. The lack of results of the first conference in our art crafts is to be deplored, especially at present, when the new tax creates an element of apprehension and insecurity throughout the lithographic trades and the larger enterprises; an agreement would have been of the greatest importance. EXHIBIT C. [Translation, Beok 20, page 321.] LEIPZIG, October 15, 1907. The organized Lithographic Artist Journeymen of Leipzig have compiled statistics of their wages, working hours, and other trade conditions and published the result. The statistics relate to 63 establishments, employing 603 journeymen artists and 132 apprentices. The average of apprentices, accordingly, would be about 1 to each 4 journeymen artists. In private lithographic establishments comparatively many apprentices are employed; in one of these establishments there are 27 apprentices to 52 journeymen artists. In individual branches of lithography the wages fluctuated between 29 marks 16 pfennig, and 37 marks 37 pfennig. The hours of work were generally eight hours, but were nine hours in some few establishments. Holidays are not paid by 11 employers, who employ 127 journeymen. Three firms, employing 37 journeymen artists, refused information to be used for statistical purposes. The average wages for map engravers is from 22 marks 84 pfennig to 38 marks 19 pfennig. WALL PAPER. [Paragraph 402.] STATEMENT OF JOHN J. LINDSAY, OF BUFFALO, N. Y., WHO SUGGESTS A NEW CLASSIFICATION FOR WALL PAPER. SATURDAY, November 21, 1908. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lindsay, what paragraph does your industry come under? Mr. LINDSAY. Wall paper, paragraph 402. The first two lines and a half in that paragraph must have been written in the last century, because the manufacturers have not made that class of paper there mentioned. Our brief has been submitted, and if those two lines and a half are changed so as to read- Paper hangings, or wall paper, including borders and ceiling decorations, and all wall hangings of which paper is the basis, or the material treated, embellished, or decorated, and not specially provided for in this act, thirty-five per centum ad valorem. if that is done the industry can go ahead. Mr. BONYNGE. You say "of which paper is a component part? Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir.. Mr. BONYNGE. In manufacturing the paper would you not want to say "of which paper is the chief part," or something of that kind? Mr. LINDSAY. No; we say "of which paper is a component part." If you will read that paragraph, you will see that it does not define it sufficiently, and that it ought to be changed. We do not want to infringe on the wall hangings of any other material. In the last five or six years the goods coming into this market have increased about 230 per cent, and in the last year over 30 per cent. And we might have something to say about this German tariff or undervaluation, which the German arrangement allows. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lindsay, suppose the language of paragraph 402 was changed to read in this way: "Paper hangings fully or in chief value of paper, and all paper not combined with other material, and not specially provided for in this act? Mr. LINDSAY. Well, that would be satisfactory; yes. The CHAIRMAN. That has been prepared for the committee with reference to the decisions of the courts, and in order to make the paragraph clear. Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Payne, the wall-paper business is a business that beautifies paper, and it becomes an artistic matter. What we want is to protect the printing or the embellishment of that paper. Mr. DALZELL. Will you please repeat your suggested paragraph? Mr. LINDSAY. Our suggestion is that it be "Paper hangings, wall paper, including borders and ceiling decorations, and all wall hangings of which paper is a component part." The CHAIRMAN. That would not do, because if it had a small part of paper in it, it could come in with a duty of 25 per cent, which would include other things that ought to be paying other duties. The paragraph that I read says, " Fully or in chief value of paper." Mr. LINDSAY. But, Mr. Chairman, they would put anything in cheaper than paper. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is the very difficulty of your suggestion. If they put in the chief material of which paper is a component part, and which might be a pound, or a hundred pounds, it would let it in for 25 per cent, if it was a wall hanging. Mr. BONYNGE. Some of the embellishments may be worth more than the paper. Mr. LINDSAY. The paper is worth very little, and it is the embellishment that we want to protect. The CHAIRMAN. You may go ahead with your statement. We will furnish you a copy of this amendment, you can look it over, and if you want to make any comments on it later, then return it to us with such comments. Mr. LINDSAY. The foreign market is interfering with us, and the 25 per cent is not sufficient. That last part of the two lines and a half of paragraph 402 should read 35 per cent instead of 25 per cent. Mr. Chairman, that is all we have to say. It is an industry that ought to be protected. Our labor is three to four times more than it is in the other markets. Our men get $25 a week, and they get from $6 to $9 over there, according to their ability. The ocean freights are low. Under the German tariff arrangement there is undervaluation. There are two hotels in San Francisco on which floss paper was put, made in Germany. We competed for that order and could not get it. We understand that it came in here under the new German law at 10 per cent duty-not 25 per cent, but 10 per cent because it was made specially for the American market. And that is the point about it. And it did not pass through any dealer's hands; it went from the manufacturer to those hotels in San Francisco-two leading hotels. Mr. BONYNGE. You export some paper for paper hanging, do you not? Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir; the goods that came into this country four years ago amounted to about $200,000. To-day it is nearly $700,000. Mr. BONYNGE. Those are the importations? Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir. Mr. BONYNGE. You also export, do you not? Mr. LINDSAY. Very little; that is, the concern with which I am connected. The Government records show that there was $7.000 worth of goods put into Germany, and $5,500 was sent by our concern over there. The other manufacturers of course put in part. Mr. BOUTELL. How many manufacturers of wall paper are there in the United States? Mr. LINDSAY. The 1905 report of the Department of Commerce shows 44. Mr. BOUTELL. Are they widely scattered through the various States? Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir; but not farther west than Chicago. Mr. BOUTELL. There are no wall-paper factories west of Chicago? Mr. LINDSAY. No, sir. Mr. BOUTELL. What is the value of the domestic output of these 44 factories? Mr. LINDSAY. Twelve million dollars, and the capital $12,000,000 also. Mr. BOUTELL. And the value of the annual output is $12,000,000? Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir. Mr. BOUTELL. About what is the value of the imported product for a similar period? Mr. LINDSAY. About $700.000. Mr. BOUTELL. As against $12,000,000? Mr. LINDSAY. Yes; but it is on the class of goods on which there is the largest profit; that is, they put it in here, fine goods, undervalued, and that does not permit the American manufacturers sufficient profit, and the tariff should be put up to prevent those goods coming into this market. Mr. BOUTELL. The method of handling your product is the same by all of the 44 factories-the method of marketing it? Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir. Mr. BOUTELL. That is, the factories sell to the jobber? Mr. LINDSAY. Part only. There are several factories who sell direct to the trade. Mr. BOUTELL. Direct to the retailer? Mr. LINDSAY. To the dealers in the different cities. There are several factories that way. Mr. BOUTELL. Of those 44 factories is there an association or combination among any part or all of them for the purpose of dividing territory? Mr. LINDSAY. No, sir. Mr. BOUTELL. Or fixing the price? Mr. LINDSAY. No, sir. Mr. BOUTELL. The retail dealer or the jobber has the benefit of perfect, free, and full competition? Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir. Mr. BOUTELL. That is true throughout the entire wall-paper trade? Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir. There was a company in operation up to 1900, and dissolved at that time and went into liquidation. No trust will stand free competition. Mr. CLARK. How long have you been in this business, Mr. Lindsay? Mr. CLARK. Have you been losing money since 1870? Mr. CLARK. How long have you been losing money? Mr. LINDSAY. We lost money a great number of years. We lost it very badly for two or three years after our company dissolved. There was not any money made in the business. Mr. CLARK. That was after the trust dissolved? Mr. LINDSAY. Yes, sir. Mr. CLARK. When did that important event happen? Mr. LINDSAY. In 1900. From 1900 to 1903 20 or 30 factories failed. Mr. CLARK. Well, from 1903 to 1907 you all made money hand over fist, did you not? Mr. LINDSAY. No, sir; the Government does not make a statement of that kind. Mr. CLARK. I am not asking about the Government's statement, but I am asking you for the facts. Mr. LINDSAY. The facts are that we all made a report-the 44 concerns in 1905 to your department of-whatever you call it Mr. CLARK. Well, I don't know, but what did you state in the re port about how much money you made? Mr. LINDSAY. We made 10 per cent on our $12,000,000. Mr. CLARK. That is a very fair profit, is it not? Mr. LINDSAY. There are concerns represented here that have a half million dollars in business that spend $50,000 on designs and blocks and rollers. Mr. CLARK. I am not asking you as to that, but I am asking you if a 10 per cent dividend is not a pleasant and comfortable profit? Mr. LINDSAY. No, sir; you could not run the wall-paper business on that. Mr. CLARK. Do you think that the average man in the United States who is engaged in business makes 10 per cent dividend? Mr. LINDSAY. I rather think they do. Mr. CLARK. And you want some more? Mr. LINDSAY. We want more; yes, sir. Mr. BOUTELL. Don't you think that the proportion of $700,000 imports to $12,000,000 of domestic production is a pretty good protection already? Mr. LINDSAY. I want to say that to come up from $200,000 to $700,000 in three or four years shows that this market is being invaded. Mr. BOUTELL. But 6 per cent is not a very heavy invasion, is it? Mr. LINDSAY. I understand the proportion; I was prepared for that. It has increased 31 per cent in the last year. Mr. BOUTELL. I understand those things, too, but it still remains that it is only 6 per cent of the domestic output. Mr. LINDSAY. But on the class of goods upon which the largest gain is. Mr. CLARK. You would really like to have a prohibitory tariff, wouldn't you, to be perfectly frank about it? You would like to have a law passed that wall paper should not come into the United States at all, and that is what you are fishing for, isn't it? Mr. LINDSAY. No, sir. Mr. CLARK. You want a tariff to do just what that law would do, don't you? Mr. LINDSAY. We want a better figure than we have now. Mr. CLARK. You want a prohibitive tariff? Mr. LINDSAY. Not at all, sir. Mr. CLARK. Well, now, if the tariff does not prohibit imports, what do you want with it? If the tariff that you are proposing does not act so as to cut out foreign importations, then what do you want with it? Mr. LINDSAY. We want it so that the class of goods-those of finer grade-we want it so that the American market will recognize the artistic merit of the American designer and artist. Mr. CLARK. I am not asking that, and that is what you are all trying to get back to. What you really want is a tariff so high that the foreigner can not bring in his goods at all? Mr. LINDSAY. I think that any good American would put on American wall paper. I think that if I was an architect I would put a clause in the specifications calling for that. Mr. CLARK. But that does not answer my question. Mr. LINDSAY. I am a good American citizen. Mr. CLARK. Well, so am I. Mr. LINDSAY. And I want this business protected. We can make just as good goods as they can on the other side. Mr. CLARK. But that is not an answer to my question. You want a prohibitive tariff? Mr. LINDSAY. No, sir; but we want a higher tariff than we have now. Mr. CLARK. If this tariff that you are asking for would not shut out those very small importations of 6 per cent, then what do you want it for? Mr. LINDSAY. We want to stop it from growing; we want to stop it from coming. Mr. BOUTELL. Isn't it a fact that even if you very largely increase the tariff, that there still would be practically 6 per cent of foreign import, 6 per cent of the total used here, on account of the different designs and different materials, the same as is true in the silk market? Mr. LINDSAY. Yes. Mr. BOUTELL. And you hope by increasing the tariff to have less than 6 per cent competition? |