PARAGRAPHS 101-102-PLATE GLASS.

term. The international convention is not a corporation, but merely a trade association. Each factory retains its own autonomy and deals direct with its customers. The primary function of the association is the adjustment of the production to the probable demand, and, incidentally, the fixing of prices, but as a matter of fact the regulation of the production creates a stable market in which prices take care of themselves. Present selling prices were established shortly after the organization of the convention in 1904 and have remained practically unchanged since; in fact, as far as the prices for the American market are concerned, there have not been any changes at all except of a minor fractional nature.

An arrangement of this sort would be of great benefit to the trade in this country, but of course would be dangerous, working behind the protection of the present mountainous tariff wall.

In the prices given for the English market (p. 455) it is carefully omitted to state that the English prices are freight paid to destination, while the American prices are f. o. b. Antwerp. It is also carefully omitted that these English prices are for glass cut to exact measurements, whereas most Belgian plate glass sold in England is in the original stock sheets and on these the prices for the English market average lower than prices for the United States. In fact it is obvious that as there is no duty on plate glass entering England. The prices for that market can never be more than a fraction higher than those for this country, as there would be no difficulty whatever in shipping to New York in bond and reexporting to Great Britain.

Summed up, the situation is that 30 years ago we imported 65 per cent of our plate glass. During that period the American production has increased about sixty-fold, and we are to-day importing only 2 per cent of the total consumption. Furthermore, the manufacturers can not under competitive conditions take advantage of their present protection, their selling prices usually being way below the importation point. There isn't any real reason, however, why the manufacturers should not get together and take advantage of their present protection. They have effected combinations in the past, and if the present tariff is allowed to stand there is every reason to expect the organization of such a combination in the future. There are abundant trade precedents for it, and a premium of 10 or 15 cents per square foot on a production of 60,000,000 square feet per year is a prize worth working for. Respectfully submitted."

SEMON BACHE & Co.,

F. J. GOERTNER, Sales Manager.

NEW YORK, December 1, 1911.

To the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: We beg to request your consideration of paragraph No. 102 of the tariff act of 1909 (polished plate glass).

From a protective point of view the duties now imposed are far out of reason. Attached hereto is an itemized statement showing that the cost of production in this country does not exceed the European cost by more than 3 or 4 cents per square: foot at the outside whereas the duties run from 10 to 224 cents.

Although this is a statement of average costs it is much more accurate than such. calculations usually are. No plate-glass factory makes anything to speak of except plate glass, and the operations are unusually free from complexity. Verification of the details of the cost of American production will be found in the pages immediately following the statement itself.

We also quote the selling prices of the American manufacturers, showing that they are selling the great bulk of their product at prices only a trifle above the duty on the imported article. It is obvious that a manufacturer does not need a protection of 10 cents per foot on glass that he sells for 11 cents, nor does he need 12 cents protection on glass sold at 14 or 15 cents, nor 22 cents protection on glass sold at from 22 to 32 cents per foot.

As for the revenue point of view, to get the revenue we must have importations, These, in the case of plate glass, are steadily dwindling, and amount to-day to about 5 per cent of the American consumption.

At the present moment the American consumer is not suffering to any extent from the high tariff. As stated above, the manufacturers are selling the product at only a cent or 2 per foot above the duty alone on the imported glass. In fact, there is a good deal of glass being sold for less than the duty,

PARAGRAPHS 101-102-PLATE GLASS.

In times past, however, the American public has paid heavily for the excessive protection given to the plate-glass industry.

In fact, the public has paid handsomely during the brief period since the passage of the Payne-Aldrich bill. The ink was hardly dry on that document when new prices were issued simultaneously by the American manufacturers. They repre sented an advance of about 20 per cent over the previous prices. The upward move ment continued, reaching its highest point in the prices of April 24 of this year, and represent an advance of about 40 per cent over the prices of 1908-9. Since then beginning early this summer, prices have dropped to the 1908-9 level.

It is only a question of time before the plate-glass manufacturers get together again They can do about anything they like behind the present tariff wall without fear of competition from abroad. It is simply a question of reaching a good understand ing among themselves. So far the combinations that have been formed have collapsed after an existence of a year or two, but there isn't any real reason why price could not be put up to the importation point and kept there indefinitely.

We respectfully submit that it is dangerous to leave this high protection hanging up as a premium for the formation of trade combinations. Prices could be raised an average of 12 to 15 cents per square foot above to-day's level without increasing the importations by more than a trifle. American production of plate glass is to-day about 50,000,000 square feet annually. There is a prize of from five to seven million dollars of annual income waiting as a reward for the plan that will get together the American plate-glass factories and keep them together. There are only 12 manu facturing companies, all told. Many more difficult combinations have been effected The subject uppermost in the public mind to-day is the regulation of all trade combinations and the prevention of oppressive combinations. It in only through the operation of the tariff that an oppressive "trust" in the plate-glass business could be formed. The present schedule of duties is a standing invitation to create one.

The present duties could be cut, at least in half, without injuring the Americar manufacturer and affording to the American consumer the protection of possible com petition from abroad. Respectfully,

SEMON BACHE & Co.,

F. J. GOERTNER, Sales Manager.

PARAGRAPHS 101-102-PLATE GLASS.

NOTE.

The figures in parentheses on the cost calculation in the table refer to the succeeding pages which contain verifications of the individual items. In most cases the proof of the accuracy of the figures is taken from the Government records and in all cases the authority is stated.

Verification of the foreign cost is not necessary, as it is practically admitted by the American plate-glass manufacturers. (See p. 1142, Tariff Hearings, Schedule B, 60th Cong.)

The Belgian cost is used as the basis of comparison, as the Belgian production is the cheapest in Europe and the importations of plate glass into the United States are mostly from that country.

Cost of production in Belgium and in the United States of polished plate glass.

This calculation covers average shop cost only and does not include interest on investment, general office expense, selling expense, nor the cost of packing material or of labor for packing. It is impossible to make an accurate average statement of these items which may run anywhere from 2 to 3 cents per square foot, either in Belgium or in the United States, according to the individual factory. See note (17) following.

PARAGRAPHS 101-102-PLATE GLASS.

NOTE 1.-Amount of labor.-We give this as 0.041 days, or the equivalent proposition of 24.4 square feet per man per day or 7,320 square feet per man per year of 300 working days.

This is a difficult item on which to reach an exact figure as the result can not be reached by dividing the annual output of a factory by the average number of employees. All the plate-glass factories make their own pots and the cost of the labor in this department is not part of the general labor cost but is included in the pot cost, which is a separate item in the calculation (see note 15). Similarly, many of the companies mine their own sand or dredge it from river or lake beds, this labor representing the cost of the sand and not being part of the general cost of manufacture. Some of the companies operate private railroads. The number of employees in these three departments in one factory that we know of aggregates 90 men.

There are also companies that specialize in very thin or very thick plate glass, both of which are considerably more expensive to produce than the regular one-quarter inch thickness and decrease the output per man accordingly.

In the case of a factory confining itself to straight plate glass production, however, it will be found that the average output per man is considerably in excess of the

amount we state.

For instance, the general manager of the Ford Plate Glass Co. stated to a commercial agency under date of March 6, 1911, as follows:

"We expect to have part of the new plant in operation within six to eight months. When it is running complete we will have a pay roll between $75,000 and $100,000 per month. Our output is now about 500,000 square feet of glass per month, and it will then be about 1,000,000 square feet. At this time we are now employing about 800 men including those employed on the new work."

Eight hundred men at 300 working days per year equals 240,000 working days per

year.

Five hundred thousand square feet per month equals 6,000,000 square feet per year, which divided by 240,000 equals 25 feet per man per day or 7,500 feet per man per year.

It will be noted that these 800 men include those engaged on the new plant and we may add that this company dredges its sand from Lake Erie, leaving the obvious conclusion that this particular factory's output is in the neighborhood of 8,000 feet per man per year.

In the Commoner and Glassworker, a Pittsburgh trade publication, in the issue of April 24, 1909, there is an article concerning this company and giving details of improvements recently made at the plant and winding up with the statement that the monthly capacity is 450,000 square feet and that the employees number 700, which works out at 7,714 feet per man per year and agrees remarkably well with the statement quoted above made two years later.

NOTE 2.-Melting materials.-We allow 10.22 pounds for the total material entering into the composition of a square foot. The weight of plate glass in the rough, immediately after casting and before grinding or polishing, is about 7 pounds per foot, so that we obviously allow sufficient material with proper allowance for volatilization, which is about 30 per cent in soda ash but much less in the other important materials. NOTE 3.-Grinding sand.-The 30.5 pounds allowed is rather larger than the quantity actually required, but as this material is more expensive in this country than in Europe we have allowed a maximum quantity to remove all room for argument. The total consumption of grinding sand on page 23 of Census Bulletin No. 62 of 1905 is given as 410,856 tons. Not all of this was used for grinding plate glass, as there were several million square feet of ground and obscured glass produced in 1905, most of which was made by the sand-blast process. However, assuming that the entire consumption was for the manufacture of polished plate, the 410,856 tons divided by the 1905 production of polished plate-27,293,138 square feet-equals 30.1 pounds per foot of production.

NOTE 4.-Plaster.-We state the required quantity as 2.66 pounds per foot of production. The total consumption according to page 23 of Census Bulletin No. 62 of 1905 was 33,939 tons, which divided by the number of square feet produced— 27,293,138-gives a results of 2.49 pounds per square foot.

NOTE 5.-Rouge.-We state the quantity as 0.05 pound per square foot. Page 23 of Census Bulletin No. 62 gives the consumption as 1,098,566 pounds, which divided by the production of 27,293,138 square feet, give a result of 0.04 pounds per foot.

NOTE 6.-Cost of labor.-It is fortunately possible to confirm this item very exactly from official records. The report of the United States Commission on Immigration, now issuing from the Government Printing Office, gives in its investigation of the conditions in the manufacture of plate glass the following tables.

PARAGRAPHS 101-102-PLATE GLASS.

STUDY OF EMPLOYEES.

TABLE 38.-Per cent of male employees 18 years of age or over earning each specified amount per week, by general nativity and race—. -Plate glass.

[This table includes only races with 80 or more males reporting. The totals, however, are for all races.]

TABLE 43.-Per cent of male employees 14 and under 18 years of age earning each specified amount per week, by general nativity and race—Plate glass.

[This table includes only races with 40 or more males reporting. The totals, however, are for all races.]

In the above tables figures are given for a total of 3,261 adult employees and 174 boys, showing average weekly wages of $12.07 and $7.87, respectively. Assuming these proportions of 3,261 to 174 to hold good, we reach an average weekly wage of $11.85, or $1.97 per day.

The above tables, Nos. 38 and 43, however, show an unduly large proportion of native American labor; that is, of high-priced labor, and an unduly small proportion of Italian and Slav labor; that is, of cheap labor.

This Italian and Slav labor constitutes 60 to 70 per cent of the entire working force in the average American factory, as stated by Mr. Clause, president of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., in his testimony before the Committee on Ways and Means in 1908. (See p. 1158, Tariff Hearings, Schedule B, Sixtieth Congress.) This is also confirmed