« AnteriorContinuar »
Mr. CLAUSE. Yes, whether it is half or more I do not know.
Mr. GAINES. It is a translation from this same book from which Mr. Cockran had a translation made, continuing the translation that Mr. Cockran had made.
Mr. DALZELL. It is the next paragraph, is it not?
Mr. GAINES. I read that portion which I had translated, following the part which Mr. Cockran had translated.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?
Mr. CLAUSE. If there is nothing more, there is one word I wish to say in conclusion.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.
Mr. CLAUSE. We have tried to give you facts here, and if there are any things that are inconsistent in your own minds, or if any statements are made here by others which by reason of lack of explanation seem to be inconsistent with these facts, I will esteem it a favor if you will allow me to help you to straighten up any apparent contradictions that may come up.
Mr. Clark. Mr. Clause, if you will permit me to make this suggestion, if you will get the notes of this evidence given here to-day, of the questions and answers, and sit down and carefully elaborate them and get the facts and figures straight which have been given in a general way, it would throw a great deal of light on the subject.
Mr. CLAUSE. I think you gentlemen have the facts pretty well, now. The thing I was afraid of was that there might be some things which looked inconsistent to you. If so, it is because they have not been explained.
Mr. Clark. Some of these newspapers claim that this committee bulldozes everybody that comes in here. I think you can bear testimony to the fact that you have been treated as courteously as ever you have been in the supreme court of Pennsylvania, or anywhere else.
Mr. CLAUSE. Yes, gentlemen; I wish to compliment you and thank you for the very courteous treatment I have received.
The CHAIRMAN. You must make allowances for the newspapers. News is scarce.
Mr. CLARK. I know, but I refer to editorial statements.
STATEMENT OF HON. ETHAN ALLEN HITCHCOCK, ST. LOUIS, MO.,
REPRESENTING PITTSBURG PLATE GLASS CO.
TUESDAY, November 24, 1908. Mr. HITCHCOCK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I will detain you only a few moments to make a short statement showing the development of the plate-glass industry in this country, with special reference to the consumer. There has been a good deal said about labor, and stockholders, and so forth. Now, I want to say a word about the consumer.
Close personal identification with the manufacture of plate glass, in all its various stages, since its introduction into this country, thirty years ago, enables me, I think, to speak advisedly regarding this industry, as the result of my observation and experience during that period. Let me first assure you, however, that the promised revision of the tariff, so far as it affects this industry, meets the entire approval and will receive the hearty cooperation of the Pittsburg Plate Glass Company, on the lines we have indicated. , Let me further state, in contradiction of the rumor which has gained circulation from time to time, that there is no combination or trust “in restraint of trade,” so far as I know, among the American producers of plate glass, but, on the contrary, the requirements of the Sorman antitrust law are being complied with in every particular. On the other hand, it is a well-known fact that a combination exists abroad by which the foreign manufacturers have agreed to such a range of fixed prices for other markets as will enable them to dump their small sizes upon the American market at figures far below our cost and still make a large average profit on the sales made here and abroad by them, their i. sheets published in 1907 showing profits as high as 49 per cent. When the plate- }. industry was started in this country consumers were dependent entirely upon the imported article, for which they had to pay the extraordinary price of from $2 to $2.50 per square foot, thus restricting its use almost exclusively to such public and private buildings as could afford such luxuries. Later on, the development of this industry resulted in the building of two or three or more new factories, upon the discovery and use of natural gas in Pennsylvania and Indiana, thus placing those factories that were dependent upon coal for fuel, as against natural gas, at a decided disadvantage, which in turn resulted in a fierce competition, precluding the possibility of any profit, the prospect for which at this point depended more upon a reduction in cost than an attempt to maintain market prices, which were, of course, lower. I need not go into the various experiences, trials, and disappointments which characterized this period of the industry, but it was soon discovered that the absence of skilled labor, the crude appliances unavoidably in use before the introduction of electricity and the latest modern methods, necessitated such increase and application of new capital as to make the relative relation of investment to profit such as would be considered entirely disproportionate and unsatisfactory in any other line of manufacture. Meanwhile, struggling under such complications and material disadvantages, the .#. glass companies came to Congress and asked for such tariff relief as would at least place their industry upon a safe and reasonably profitable basis. Without wearying you with a detailed account of the efforts made in this direction, I merely state that, as the result of tariff legislation and wide-awake, up-to-date improvement and management in the process of manufacture, polished plate glass is now being offered and sold to the consumers of this country at from 10 per cent to 15 per cent of the price formerly exacted by the importer.
This industry has given employment to thousands of workmen in the 7 factories owned by our company and the 11 plants owned by our competitors and to the labor which produces the material, raw and manufactured, from which plate glass is made, such as coal, sand, soda ash, limestone, etc., so that the entire cost of making and paying for plate glass has remained here instead of being sent abroad, as heretofore, to the extent of millions of dollars.
From the foregoing it must, I think, be admitted that the protection against this particular industry has not been misplaced, as plate glass, which was once a luxury, has now become a necessity, because it can now be, and is, furnished to the consumer at about oneeighth of its former cost, thus enhancing the rentable and saleable value of his property and greatly beautifying the architectural appearance of the modest home, as well as the towering office building.
So much for the consumer, but how about the stockholder?
I again assert that the capital necessary to repair, remodel, and replace existing plants, together with the increasing cost of up-todate methods, material, and machinery, is out of all proportion when compared with similar expenditures in foreign countries and the lowered prices and net results of this industry at home, as is proven by the dividends earned and paid during the past thirty years' strug. gle which it has had to contend with, and which has not returned an average of 3 per cent on the investment for that period. The average dividend paid on the stock of our company since its organization has been 41 per cent upon the capital stock, which represents actual cash invested.
And now you ask, “Well, what do you want?” to which I reply, “ Simply one fixed, flat rate on all sizes of polished plate glass, as the best and only means of providing reasonable protection for the industry.”
It costs just as much per square foot to make a small sheet of plate glass as a large one, but when it comes to selling small sizes, the price realized is below all reason and absorbs the profit on the larger sizes.
There is no way to avoid the accumulation of small glass through unavoidable breakage and shrinkage from the beginning to the end in the process and progress of the large sizes through the factory.
Setting aside all sentiment, the question of fair play, national pride in the establishment of this industry, and the consideration of political expediency; but, on the other hand, treating our position on a plain, straightforward business basis, we respectfully claim that the American market belongs to the American manufacturer, as long as he deals promptly, fairly, and justly with the American consumer, who, by the permanent establishment in this country of the plate-glass industry, has been furnished with an abundant supply of its beautiful and useful product at about one-eighth of the price he had formerly to pay.
Mr. CLARK. Is your company a part of the Pittsburg company? Mr. HITCHCOCK. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clark. And the number you name as being in it are all branches of the same company?
Mr. HITCHCOCK. They are all owned by the same company.
STATEMENT OF W. L. KANN, REPRESENTING THE PENN AMERICAN PLATE GLASS COMPANY, RELATIVE TO PLATE GLASS.
TUESDAY, November 24, 1908.
Mr. KANN. I represent the Penn American Plate Glass Company. Mr. W. J. Vance, of St. Louis, representing the Allegheny Plate Glass Company; Mr. H. J. Trautman, representing the Standard Plate Glass Company, and myself eonstitute a committee representing these eleven companies, and that committee presents this brief which is before you. Mr. CockrAN. Have you the Treasury figures showing the growth of the native industry, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. No; I have not. Mr. CockrAN. We can get that, can we not? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. UNDERwood. The other day you stated, Mr. Chairman, that you had called on the statisticians for a statement of the amount of production in each of these industries, and that it would be printed. The CHAIRMAN. That was of the production for the year 1907. Mr. UNDERwood. Has that been printed as yet? The CHAIRMAN. No; it is being done, and the proof corrected by the Census Office. I do not know how far it has progressed. The printer must have had it in hand for two or three days. Mr. CockrAN. The Census Bureau has it in hand? The Cli Air MAN. Yes; the Census Bureau. Mr. CockrAN. Mr. Kann, before you begin, does this list of companies that you have here on the outside of your brief embrace all the plate-glass companies in the United States that are not in this Pittsburg Glass Company? Mr. KANN. That is correct, sir; and I only represent them as one of a committee of three that was asked to come here. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Rann. Mr. KANN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, in asking your consideration of the necessities for tariff revision as applying to the manufacture of plate glass, in order to take up as little of your time as possible, we appear before you representing eleven manufacturers, viz, Penn American Plate Glass Company, of Alexandria, Ind.; Standard Plate Glass Company, of Butler, Pa.; St. Louis Plate Glass Company, of St. Louis, Mo.; Allegheny Plate Glass Company, of Glassmere, Pa.; Heidenkamp Mirror Company, of Hite, Pa.; Kittanning Plate Glass Company, of Kittanning, Pa.; Columbia Plate Glass Company, of Blairsville, Pa.; the Edward Ford Plate Glass Company, of Rossford, Ohio; Saginaw Plate Glass Company, of Saginaw, Mich.; Federal Plate Glass Company, of Ottawa, Ill.; and the American Plate Glass Company, of Kane, Pa.; and referring specifically to paragraph No. 104 of the Dingley tariff bill, we beg to call your attention to the fact, as shown by the reports of the Treasury Department, that during the year 1898 there were imported into this country a total of 696,835 square feet of plate glass, of which 278,728 feet came in under the Wilson bill and 418,107 feet under the Dingley bill. These figures have grown in nine years, including the year 1907, to the enormous proportions of 40,196,015 feet, or an average per year of 4,466.224 feet. Of this amount 35,567,208 feet was under and including glass containing 24/60 inches, a yearly
average of 3,951,884 feet, paying a duty of, respectively, 8 cents, 10 cents, and 22 cents per square foot; and 4,628,605 feet over 241/60 inches, or a yearly average of 514,289 feet, paying a duty of 35 cents
It will be seen by an examination of these figures that for some good reason the American manufacturer of plate glass did not supply this large amount of glass for which there was a home demand in excess of what he did supply. The reason was he could not without entailing a very considerably greater loss than he did, for it is a fact that the American manufacturer during these nine years did sell a very large part of his production, amounting to more than 60 per cent of the whole, in competition with the foreign-made glass, upon which he did not realize the cost of manufacture.
The foreign manufacturer enjoys decided advantages over the American manufacturer in the cost of labor, he paying on an average one-third what is paid on the average to the American employee; the foreign labor is more skilled, having been attached to the industry for many years and seldom making a change, positions ofttimes going from father to son.
The factories abroad are all located practically in one district, whilst in the United States they are scattered over six States. And in the competition for trade amongst the American manufacturers they are compelled to allow freight equalization to distributing centers, which amounts to from 5 to 74 per cent of the selling price, adding so much to the cost. This the foreign manufacturer escapes. In addition to this the railroad companies abroad make special rates on their product to the seaboard, and the ocean carriers make rates from their seaboard to the inland consuming and distributing cities of the United States as low as the American manufacturers can obtain from their factories to these same points. As an illustration, the freight rate from Antwerp to Chicago was 35 cents per 100 pounds, whilst the rate from the Pittsburg district to Chicago was 39 cents per 100 pounds.
During these nine years the demand for glass has increased considerably. It is also a fact that the cost of making the same has been materially increased in wages and materials entering into cost of production.
Referring to the imports in the 24 by 60 inch brackets paying a duty of 221 cents per foot, you will note they have grown until they now are greater than the imports in all of the brackets, including all over 24 by 60 inches, were in the year 1899.
It is, therefore, self-evident that the present duty, as imposed, is not constructed to protect the American manufacturer. When he is compelled to sell the large proportion of over 60 per cent of his product at less than actual cost, a parallel condition, we question if it exists in any other manufactured products enjoying the supposed benefits of a protective tariff.
It must be understood in the manufacture of plate glass that it costs as much and more, relatively, to produce a small sheet than it does a large one from the fact that small glass is largely the result of accident and breakage in the course of manufacture, and ofttimes the result of poor operations, necessitating cutting the large plate for defects, and, as all sizes inust go through the same mechanical operations requiring materials, labor, fuel, power, and supervision, the