PARAGRAPH 109-STAINED WINDOW GLASS.

We respectfully ask that your committee do not place a club in the hands of this corporation that would give it an overpowering advantage.

(7) Included in the brief of Mayer & Co. are two apparently distinct propositions: First, that the duty on stained or painted glass windows, or parts thereof, as found in paragraph 109, be reduced from 45 to 25 per cent ad valorem. The second proposition is that the word "including" be substituted for "except," preceding the phrase "stained or painted window glass, or stained or painted glass windows," as found in paragraph 716.

Right here, permit me to show you the colored gentleman in the woodpile. Your committee is asked to change paragraph 716, so as to give the privilege of free entry to stained-glass windows intended for church use. If you grant this privilege, paragraph 109, imposing an ad valorem duty, would be of noneffect, because your appraiser would undoubtedly be confronted with this statement: "My dear sir, these stainedglass windows are a donation to a certain church, and under paragraph 716 they can not be subject to the imposition of any tax whatever." A recapitulation of my statement shows that of the total number of stained-glass windows sold to American churches for church use, about 85 per cent are made by foreign manufacturers, and that virtually all stained-glass windows sold for church use are primarily presented to the churches as donations. The American maker of stained-glass windows is therefore confronted with the proposition that he makes stained-glass windows for church use under absolutely free-trade conditions.

(8) To place stained glass upon the free list would deprive the Government of an annual revenue of about $120,000. The last report given by the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce is as follows: Imports of glass windows, value, $266,408; a duty at 45 per cent ad valorem, $119,883.

If you place stained-glass windows, intended for church use, upon the free list, you give up about $120,000 annually, at the same time presenting to the importer and foreign manufacturers additional profits by reason of the increased volume of business that would accrue to them.

Respectfully submitted.

FREDERICK E. MAYER.

IMPORTERS OF STAINED WINDOW GLASS AND STAINED-GLASS WINDOWS. Curie, Smith & Maxwell, attorneys for importers of stained window glass and stained glass windows, 32 Broadway, New York City. Thomas M. Lane, of counsel.

To the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: We beg to submit the following brief in behalf of the importers of stained glass windows, who ask for a reduction of duty on said windows, or for their free entry when imported for churches.

Prior to the enactment of the McKinley tariff of 1890, stained glass windows portraying biblical and religious subjects were admitted free of duty when imported for presentation to religious societies. (Par. 819, tariff act of 1883; 146 U. S., 71, 73.)

The McKinley tariff of 1890 (par. 122) made specific provision for stained glass windows and stained window glass at a duty of 45 per cent and expressly excluded such stained glass and stained glass windows from the provision exempting paintings imported for presentation to churches (par. 757). This action was taken upon the urgent plea of manufacturing interests that the stained glass window industry was then an infant industry in this country and entitled to protection. A decision of the United States Supreme Court upon a test case taken up under this tariff held that, in view of the exclusion of stained glass windows from free entry under paragraph 757, such exception must be considered implied in the other paragraphs relating to importations for churches. (U. S. v. Perry, 146 U. S., 71.) This decision definitely fixed the duty on all stained glass windows, for whatever purpose imported, at 45 per cent, and gave the domestic interests the fullest measure of protection.

From 1890 to the present day this rate has been continued except for a brief interval of three years under the Wilson tariff of 1894, when the rate on stained glass windows was reduced to 35 per cent (par. 102), and the provision admitting such windows to free entry when imported for presentation to churches was restored to the free list (par. 686). The Dingley tariff of 1897 reenacted the provisions of the act of 1890, and the Payne-Aldrich tariff of 1909 continued them.

Since this protection was given it, the stained glass window industry in this country has grown and flourished and is now an established business. This is evidenced by

PARAGRAPH 109-STAINED WINDOW GLASS.

the number of houses doing business in this line, some of them important and prosperA glance at the published hearings on this subject under the various tariffs is sufficient evidence of this.

ous.

Nevertheless, when this question came up at the preliminary hearing on the PayneAldrich act of 1909, the American manufacturers, notwithstanding the growth of their industry under a protective duty of 45 per cent ad valorem, which they had enjoyed for practically 18 years, and which had not been seriously impaired by an interval of three years, during which competitive conditions with European manufacturers were restored, petitioned Congress for even greater protection than they had hitherto enjoyed. We anticipate that a similar effort will be made before your committee and will briefly discuss some of the representations made to the Ways and Means Committee of the Sixty-first Congress, upon the assumption that they may be renewed here.

The application of the Von Gerichten Art Glass Co., of Columbus, Ohio, found in Tariff Hearings, 1908-9, Schedule B, pages 1232-1235, offers a fair example of the extravagant demand for protection made by the domestic manufacturers. This company asked that a specific rate of $2 per square foot and 20 per cent ad valorem be substituted for the existing rate of 45 per cent ad valorem, and represents that this difference in rate reflects the difference in the cost of manufacture of the same window in Europe and in the United States.

They use for purposes of illustration a window containing 165 square feet of glass, which they say can be sold in Europe for $216. The duty on 165 square feet of glass, at $2 per square foot, is $330, and the duty at 20 per cent ad valorem on the foreign value of $216 is $43.20. The total duty proposed was therefore $259.20 on a window sold abroad for $216; a duty equivalent to 120 per cent ad valorem.

This rate was nearly three times as high as had ever been placed upon stained-glass windows by the most radical of the protective tariffs. An industry demanding such a rate of protection would evidently be of the "hothouse" variety, and its existence in this country could only be assured by taxing the consumer to an extent entirely out of proportion to the importance of maintaining such an anemic industry. But there is abundant evidence that the industry of manufacturing stained-glass windows in this country is not of such a character and needs no such measure of protection. It has grown strong under a duty of 45 per cent ad valorem, and was apparently not seriously injured by the rate of 35 per cent and the privilege of free entry for windows imported for churches, which prevailed under the tariff act of 1894.

It is incredible that your committee would seriously entertain a proposal to increase the present high rate of protection. To do so would be to raise an effective tariff bar against some of the most artistic glass in the world, which is available to our churches and to those who seek to beautify them by gifts of memorial and other windows. Such legislation would also wipe out the substantial revenue derived from the duties on stained-glass windows and would place our churches and the donors of many splendid works of art at the mercy of the domestic manufacturer, whose way to exorbitant profits would be made easy. We respectfully submit that there is nothing in the policy of our tariff legislation which requires that the cause of religion should be made to suffer to enrich a few manufacturers.

Upon the contrary, we urgently insist that the present duty on stained-glass windows should be reduced. It has been the policy of Congress, recognized in many tariff acts, to favor the cause of religion by allowing free importation of articles intended to be used for religious purposes. The striking out of all provisions for free entry of stained-glass windows imported for presentation to churches under the tariff acts of 1890, 1897, and 1909 was a pronounced and radical exception to the general policy of Congress. The present tariff has imposed a severe and burdensome tax upon churches and upon those whose religious inclinations have prompted them to make gifts of beautiful devotional works of art to churches.

The domestic manufacturers have had 23 years in which to put their industry on its feet. They have not only succeeded in putting it on its feet, but have made it a very strong and thriving industry. They are more than holding their own against foreign competition and ought to be disposed to make concessions after such a liberal treatment over so long a period of time.

We respectfully submit that the industry is no longer in its infancy and that the time has come when it is entirely proper that Congress should withdraw from it some of the protection it has been enjoying. This would be in accord with the soundest economic principles, held even by those who advocate the protective policy.

We ask your committee to accept with caution figures that may be given by domestic manufacturers for labor in various countries in Europe. Hitherto these figures have

PARAGRAPH 109—STAINED WINDOW GLASS.

been accompanied by no statement as to the authority on which they are given, and we are satisfied that they have been far from correct. We submit that hearsay evidence on this question of wages or cost of production should not be received. It should always be borne in mind, in connection with these statements as to lower wages paid to European workmen, that the American manufacturer requires and obtains from his workmen nearly twice as much work in a given number of hours as can be obtained from corresponding workmen in a European establishment.

That the figures given by the American manufacturers are unreliable can be shown by the example already cited by them from the last tariff hearing (ante, p. 3). It was asserted that a window containing 165 square feet would have a factory cost in Germany of $120.50 and could be sold for export in Germany at $216. Expressed in German currency, this is a factory cost of approximately 3 marks per square foot and a selling price of 54 marks per square foot.

The actual facts are very different. The books of Mayer & Co., of Munich, the largest manufacturers of stained-glass windows in Germany, show an average factory cost upon a year's business, including "Regie," or administration expenses, of 8.58 marks per square foot for all glass made, or 10.72 marks per square foot after adding 25 per cent profit to arrive at a fair selling price. The authority for these figures is the affidavit of a sworn accountant who examined the books of this company, printed as an appendix to this brief. The original of this affidavit is at the disposal of your committee if it desires it.

The schedule of values now being used for the purpose of appraising this glass at the port of New York, which can be verified by the appraiser at that port, is as follows: "One single figure, 18 marks per square foot.

"Group of two figures, 20 marks per square foot.

"Group of three figures, 22 marks per square foot.

"Group of four figures and over, 23 marks per square foot.

"Landscape, 12 marks per square foot. "Ornament, 8 marks per square foot.

"Busts, 14 marks per square foot."

While the above values adopted by the appraising officers as the foreign market value of this glass are believed to be much too high, in view of the actual conditions shown by the books of Mayer & Co., they serve to emphasize the absurdity of the claims made by the American manufacturer, who asserts that this glass can be turned out in Germany for 3 marks per square foot and sold for 5 marks per square foot, and makes his claim for protection accordingly.

Recurring to the window of 165 square feet chosen as an example, the American manufacturer tells us that its factory cost in this country would be $257. (Tariff Hearings, 1908-9, pp. 1233 to 1234.) This is equivalent to 6.55 marks per square foot. Compare these figures with Mayer & Co.'s average factory cost of 8.58 marks per square foot. Where do we find any basis for the plea that the American manufacturer needs a protective duty of 45 per cent to compensate for the difference between the cost of prolucing his window and that of the German manufacturer?

Hitherto the American manufacturers applying for protection have failed to furnish any figures as to the increase of their business since 1890, or the amount of their profits, or, if they are incorporated, the dividends they pay on their stock, or the relation their stock issue bears to the actual amount of money invested in the business, etc. In short, as to all the facts peculiarly within their own knowledge, they have been reticent to the last degree, whereas as to those of which they can have no actual knowledge they have been exceedingly ready to talk.

It should be borne in mind that the competition between foreign and domestic stained glass, which is the subject of the present dispute, exists only as to stained glass windows imported for churches, etc. As to the opalescent and ornamental glass, such as is used in private houses, public buildings, etc., the domestic manufacturer now enjoys a monopoly, and the foreign houses have not attempted and do not now seek to compete with him.

For the foregoing reasons we respectfully urge the following changes in the existing law as found in paragraphs 109 and 716 of the tariff act of 1909:

(1) That the duty on stained or painted glass windows, or parts thereof, as found in paragraph 109, be reduced from 45 to 25 per cent ad valorem.

(2) That the word "including" be substituted for the word "except," preceding the phrase, "stained or painted window glass or stained or painted glass windows, as found in paragraph 716, thus restoring the privilege of free entry to church windows

PARAGRAPH 109-STAINED WINDOW GLASS.

as it stood under the Wilson tariff of 1894, and as it was accorded prior to the tariff act of 1890.

Dated, New York, January 6, 1913.

CURIE, SMITH & MAXWELL,

Attorneys for Importers of Stained Window Glass and Stained Glass Windows, No. 32 Broadway, New York City.

THOMAS M. LANE,

To-day, the 27th day of February, 1912, appeared before me, Justizrat Karl Lens, royal notary at Munich XII, in my office, Mr. Simbert Sallinger, known to me personally as sworn auditor and competent judge in matters of bookkeeping, residing at 12/IV Barerstrasse, Munich, and declared his intention to make an affidavit.

I, notary, thereupon called expressly Mr. Sallinger's attention to the legal importance of an affidavit and the criminal consequences in case he knowingly or carelessly made a false statement on affidavit.

Thereupon Mr. Sallinger declared with his request of having his statement recorded the following:

Requested by the firm Mayer'sche Kgl. Hofkunstanstalt in Munich to calculate upon the entries in their books the market value of one square foot of their production in stained glass, I undertook the task in the offices of the said firm between February 21 and February 24, 1912.

Before examining the books I inspected attentively the studios of the firm already well known to me, and after examining the properly kept books basing my calculations upon the business year from March 1, 1910. to February 28, 1911-as the last year balanced-have arrived at the following results and affirm:

That in the period mentioned the production of stained glass amounted to 34,800 square feet, that the cost of production per square foot was 8.586 marks, to which amount added 25 per cent for profit, 2.147 marks: follows that the market value per square foot is 10.733 marks.

In detail the books show the following items

The above-mentioned figures have been arrived at with the utmost exactness and will correspond in the average with the cost of production of other producers of stained glass in Munich. What the firm pays more in higher wages they really save, as, owing to their widespread circle of customers and large output, the cartoons, the production of which requires great outlay, can be used over and over again. Thus, this item amounts to only 1.13 marks per square foot, although the firm employs prominent artists.

I state hereby particularly that the market value as figured above is based upon the total production of stained glass by the firm in the year 1910-11, and that the market value for the stained glass supplied to the New York house would figure out

PARAGRAPH 109-STAINED WINDOW GLASS.

much less, as for these supplies the advantages of a wholesale production are most apparent.

Now, referring to the custom of the firm to charge to the New York house higher prices than calculated above and declared in the legalized invoices for custom purposes as market value, the reason for this lies in the inner conditions, to wit: In the annual balance the profit for the New York house is figured separately, as the manager of that branch draws a share of the so-established profit. As the mother house in Munich takes a certain amount of the profit beforehand, on which the New York house gets no share, the New York house has to accept the goods at a higher amount. This is, therefore, as already mentioned, a purely internal and book technical matter, and the making out of invoices to that effect could just as well have been omitted and the matter arranged at the annual balance. For the custom declaration, the above figured market value only is material and correct.

I confirm by affidavit the correctness and completeness of my statement given above.

This present document, of which a copy has not been retained, is to be handed over to the Mayer'sche Kgl. Hofkunstanstalt against payment of costs. Read out by the notary, acknowledged by the interested parties, and signed m. p. [SEAL.] SIMBERT SALLINGER, Justizrat Lenz, Royal Notary.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

State, City, and County of New York, ss:

I, the undersigned notary public in and for the county of New York, familiar with the English as well as with the German language, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing translation with the German original attached hereto, and found that it is a correct translation of the German original.

New York, March 19, 1912. [SEAL.]

ROB. SCHWARTZ,

Notary Public, 104, for New York County.

MEMORIAL OF ORNAMENTAL GLASS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION.

Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD,

Chairman Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

On behalf of the National Ornamental Glass Manufacturers' Association, composed of glass stainers in all of the prominent cities of the United States, and including from 75 to 80 per cent of all the glass of this character manufactured in the United States, we beg to submit for your consideration, certain facts patent to our trade, and which have a distinct bearing on the rate of tariff on stained-glass windows.

(a) The cost of production of our product consists mainly of the item of labor, in fact it is variously estimated from 75 to 80 per cent of the entire cost of production. (b) Wages in Europe are from one-third to one-half of what corresponding labor is paid for in this country.

(c) Wages have, in the last decade, advanced about 25 per cent, and at that time our industry was protected with a 65 per cent ad valorem duty, since reduced to a 45 per cent ad valorem.

(d) The gross product of our industry in the United States probably exceeds $7,000,000 annually, requiring an investment of about $2,500, and employing about

6,000 workmen.

We therefore ask for a revision of the tariff:

First. Based on a specific duty for $4 per square foot on all stained-glass windows or parts of windows, painted, stained, or enameled for any purpose whatever. Second. In addition thereto an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent.

Our reasons for asking for the above changes in the tariff is called for by the facts that the German and Austrian importers undervalue their work, and even go to the extent of entering work into this country gratis (re St. Mary's G. C. Church, N. S. Pittsburgh, by the Tyrolese Co., of Insbruck), therefore, by placing the duties, as asked for, and establishing a flat rate with an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent added thereto, there should be no further inducements to undervaluations.

Fourth. We would also recommend the elimination of all conflicting clauses, which have heretofore allowed stained or painted glass or windows being brought into the country under pictorial painting on glass classification, for the reasons that the German