PARAGRAPHS 97-98 GLASS AND GLASSWARE.

consumer the benefit of the reductions instead of giving the benefit to the foreign steamship pool.

Such a regulation might be one providing that the reductions should not affect importations from any country, freight rates from the ports of which are controlled and fixed by agreement between steamship companies engaged in transportation between the ports of such country and ports in the United States.

If possible, I should like to be heard briefly on this subject before your committee on January 6, when the hearing on this schedule comes up, or at such other time as may be fixed. With great respect, I am,

Yours, very truly,

CLARENCE J. SHEARN.

STATEMENT REGARDING HOLLOW GLASSWARE.

Hon. OSCAR UNDERWOOD,

Washington, D. C.

NEW YORK, December 24, 1912.

DEAR SIR: I beg to call your attention to hollow glassware, such as shades and chimneys, which were dutiable under the McKinley bill at 45 per cent ad valorem, cases and packing free. Since then a powerful syndicate of high protectionists caused the passage of a bill, advancing the duty to 60 per cent ad valorem, including the cost of cases and packing, so that we pay 75 to 80 per cent duty on the glass, as the cases and packing are worthless after unpacking.

We are even forced to pay full duty on breakage, so that a case with 50 per cent breakage, such as occurs not infrequently, cost us 125 per cent duty.

On many articles which I import I have to raise my invoice 24 to 5 per cent, because the examiner and the appraisers claim that other importers of smaller quantities have paid more for the same article, and make no allowance for quantities or better buying ability.

You and your colleagues will readily see that a revision of the tariff on shades and chimneys and other glassware is warranted and equitable. Forty-five per cent duty on the naked glassware is surely an adequate protection for this industry.

On the 1st of January, 1912, ocean freight rates are being advanced 20 per cent, thus giving the American manufacturers still further protection.

Sincerely hoping that you will give this matter your consideration, I remain,

Respectfully, yours,

OSCAR O. FRIEDLAENDER.

MEMORIAL FROM GLASSWORKERS' UNION, PHILADELPHIA,

PA.

HEADQUARTERS LOCAL UNION No. 99, A. F. G. W. U.,
Philadelphia, Pa., January 27, 1913.

Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

HONORABLE SIR: Our attention has been called to the fact that the Ways and Means Committee is now considering a revision of the tariff laws on imported glasswares, and has the subject under consideration known as paragraph B, schedule 98. We most respectfully call your attention to the fact that a reduced tariff means reduced wages to our members and other sacrifices such as were experienced under the Wilson tariff law.

We therefore beseech you and your committee to not make any reduction on the present tariff rates on imported glasswares, as the present tariff rates do not afford sufficient protection to the American workman, as considerable glassware is now being imported notwithstanding the extraordinary keen competition prevailing in the glass markets of our country.

There is no monopoly on glasswares in the American trade, and no organization among the flint-glass manufacturers. All are free to sell as they please and prices are very low.

There will be no relief afforded to the citizens of our country if the tariff rates are reduced, as it will only intensify the present deplorable state of affairs.

Therefore we most respectfully protest against any reduction in the tariff rates, and we trust you will act favorably on our appeal.

Sincerely, yours,

JAMES P. MCENTEE, Secretary.

PARAGRAPH 99.

PARAGRAPH 99—WINDOW GLASS.

Unpolished, cylinder, crown, and common window glass, not exceeding one hundred and fifty square inches, valued at not more than one and onehalf cents per pound, one and one-fourth cents per pound; valued at more than one and one-half cents per pound, one and three-eighths cents per pound; above that, and not exceeding three hundred and eighty-four square inches, valued at not more than one and three-fourths cents per pound, one and threefourths cents per pound; valued at more than one and three-fourths cents per pound, one and seven-eighths cents per pound; above that, and not exceeding seven hundred and twenty square inches, valued at not more than two and one-eighth cents per pound, two and one-fourth cents per pound; valued at more than two and one-eighth cents per pound, two and three-eighths cents per pound; above that, and not exceeding eight hundred and sixtyfour square inches, two and three-fourths cents per pound; above that, and not exceeding one thousand two hundred square inches, three and onefourth cents per pound; above that, and not exceeding two thousand four hundred square inches, three and three-fourths cents per pound; above that, four and one-fourth cents per pound: Provided, That unpolished cylinder, crown, and common window glass, imported in boxes, shall contain fifty square feet, as nearly as sizes will permit, and the duty shall be computed thereon according to the actual weight of glass.

WINDOW GLASS.

STATEMENT OF J. R. JOHNSTON, PRESIDENT OF THE JOHNSTON GLASS CO., HARTFORD CITY, IND.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, since coming here I find there are three representatives of the windowglass industry, who have prepared arguments that contain very much that I contemplated saying. Therefore I am going to surrender my time and submit a brief in behalf of my company. It has been suggested by these three gentlemen, Messrs. Hilton, Neenan, and Stone, that if 15 minutes were added to my allotted time, the window-glass industry could be disposed of to-day.

The CHAIRMAN. We will have to get through with the witnesses that are here, but if we can get through with them to-day we will try to accommodate them. Your brief will be inserted at this point.

BRIEF OF J. R. JOHNSTON, PRESIDENT JOHNSTON GLASS CO.

TO COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

Washington, D. C.

JANUARY 8, 1913.

MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN: The continuance of manufacturing window glass in the United States by hand methods depends upon the retention of sufficient tariff to keep foreign glass out of our market.

The removal or any large reduction in the tariff would admit Belgian glass in such quantities that it would force the closing of our plants in a very short time.

I have been engaged in the manufacture of window glass since 1890 and have found the business exceedingly erratic, caused by various changes in methods, ruinous competition at times between manufacturers, labor troubles, and overproduction. Some of the opponents of a protective tariff have stated that the business has not prospered, even though protected; and while this to a certain extent is true, the manufacturing of window glass would have ceased long ago in the United States had this protection been removed.

It has been the history of the business that years showing losses have been freely intermingled with those showing profits, and it is a fact that not a single rich man can be named in the window-glass business who accumulated his means through the manu facture of glass.

75262°-B-13-21

PARAGRAPH 99-WINDOW GLASS.

In the earlier days 10 months was considered the operating period, and for several years factories operated for that length of time; but the production grew so rapidly that when the output was at its height there was a total of 4,000 pots in the country that could manufacture window glass, and with this increased output the period for operating the factories gradually worked into fewer months, until now eight months is considered a long period of operation, and more frequently our plants operate seven months. To-day less than 1,400 hand-operated pots are in blast, and 20 modern plants are idle and 20 other factories of more or less modern construction are not operating. Natural gas has played a very important part in building up the industry. It is an ideal fuel for making window glass, but it can scarcely be said to have been of very much financial gain to those who have invested their money in the business. When a gas field has been discovered promoters, land companies, and commercial clubs have offered extraordinary inducements to establish window-glass factories because of the attractive pay roll,and in many cases gas was furnished free of charge or else at an exceedingly low rate, which price was many times below the cost of artificial fuel. When the gas in any certain field would fail, the factories were either abandoned or moved to some newly-discovered field. This can be shown by the list of factories attached, which is made from a directory of 1898. There isn't a single factory in this list, that is operated by hand, in the location named at that time, and about 90 per cent of them have been dismantled and gone out of business.

The principal cost in making window glass is in labor, about 60 per cent, and any further reductions in American costs would have to come from that source; and with glassworkers employed on an average of seven months a year, there is no room for economy in that direction. The other important costs are fuel and lumber, both of which are continually advancing and are likely to show further increases from year to year. In this country about two-thirds of the glass used is in single strength, and from 50 to 60 per cent of this single strength is in the first three brackets, which means sizes 16 by 24 and smaller. These sizes especially need an increased tariff, for the reason that in Belgium the percentage of first three bracket sizes consumed is only about 20 per cent, which leaves that country with a surplus of small glass that they are only too anxious to distribute in the United States and other world's markets.

Under the present tariff schedule the margin of profit on first two bracket sizes in single strength is practically nothing, and American manufacturers make and sell at least 1,000,000 boxes of small glass at an actual loss. On this small glass we should have increased protection. The amount of tariff on these sizes should not be less than 2 cents per pound.

Personally I would be willing to leave the arrangement of the tariff schedule to any fair-minded committee that would investigate foreign costs and base the protection on the difference between labor in Belgium, skilled and unskilled, as compared with wages for similar workmen in the United States, adding what any business man would consider a reasonable profit on the investment.

The differences in wages in Belgium as compared with wages paid in the United States is one of the strongest arguments why no lowering of the tariff should be considered. Common labor in Belgian window-glass factories receives 60 cents per day as against our men at $2 per day.

In the skilled trades the same relative difference applies.

In the Belgian factories are employed many women, and girls are employed at wages much lower than are paid their own men. These Belgian factories operate continuously, viz, 24 hours daily and 7 days in the week.

Comparative figures show that for every $35 paid by foreign manufacturers as window-glass labor, we manufacturers in this country pay $100 for the same service.

The estimated consumption of window glass in this country is between seven and seven and one-half million boxes. The returns for all of the glass manufactured in the United States to the manufacturers does not exceed $15,000,000. Therefore, as compared with the great industrial world, it is insignificant, as innumerable business houses conducting small establishments do this much business annually. Attached is statement showing the annual imports for the last 25 years.

We have never been able to dispose of any of our goods outside of our own country, as we are met with Belgian competition in Canada, Central America, South America, and Mexico, which would mean a serious loss to us if we met the selling price of our competitors in these countries. Therefore, our sales are confined to our own territory and we hope that we will not be disturbed in marketing our goode at home. The price of glass is not high, and the percentage of cost in construction is trifling.

Belgian manufacturers handle their business through syndicates which are encouraged and supported by their Government. Therefore, if we remove the tariff on

PARAGRAPH 99-WINDOW GLASS.

window glass we will not only abandon glass making to the foreign laborer and manufacturer but we will be buying our glass from one of these trusts which are so strongly condemned at home.

I attach two estimates herewith showing the cost of glass in two dwelling houses, which, at the price the retailer obtains for this glass, is only 1 per cent of the total cost of the buildings. Window glass is the cheapest form of construction and can not be duplicated in cost by using any other material. It is far cheaper than wood, stone, brick, steel, etc., per square foot.

When noting the amount of window glass being used it can not be said that prices are high and that the consumer is paying more than a normal price for our product. We hear of no complaints on prices, or tariff, excepting from a few importers whose selfish commercial interests cause them to lose sight of American laborers and the owners of plants who contribute no small part to the building up and support of our country.

Not only does foreign labor make the retention of present tariff imperative, but the low ocean transportation charges work to our tremendous disadvantage. The rates from Belgium to Pacific coast points are about one-third of our freight charges on rail shipments from our factories to the Pacific coast. About one-tenth of our product is used on the Pacific coast.

In conclusion, will say that I firmly believe that if the tariff on window glass is removed or lowered the industry will be destroyed. The glass workers will be compelled to work for impossible wages until such time as they finally abandon their trades, and the factories we own will drift into the junk heap. Respectfully submitted.

J. R. JOHNSTON,

President Johnston Glass Co., Hartford City, Ind.

GLASS IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

The following tables are interesting as showing the amount of American money which has gone to foreign countries during the past 25 years in exchange for glass and glassware and the amount of foreign money which has been expended for our products during a corresponding period. The tables presented do not include all of the foreign glass which reaches our shores, plates or disks, rough cut or unwrought, for optical instruments, which come in free of duty, being an exception, and for this class of goods alone there was imported during the fiscal year ending with June 30, 1912, $383,234 worth, our total expenditure for foreign glass during the 12 months ending with June 30 of this year having been $6,210,625, while the value of our exportations during a corresponding period was $3,494,153. The record of window-glass importations for 25 years is as follows:

PARAGRAPH 99-WINDOW GLASS.

The following statement shows the amount in boxes and pounds, and the value of cylinder, crown, and common window glass, unpolished, imported during July, 1912, at the ports of entry designated:

The following statement shows the amount in boxes and pounds and the value of cylinder, crown, and common window glass, unpolished, imported during August, 1912, at the ports of entry designated:

In the above table it will be observed that Columbus is credited with taking 11 pounds, the value being $6, while Denver imported 57 pounds, at a reported cost of $231. That strikes us as being sort of funny, but it is the showing made in the Government's official record.

The following statement shows the amount of boxes and pounds and the value of cylinder, crown, and common window glass, unpolished, imported during September, 1912, at the ports of entry designated: