process of high tariff to induce him to pay his expenses and come here to testify.

Mr. GALES. That is the very suggestion, sir, that I make here, that the manufacturers can very well afford the time and expense to come here, because they could very easily make up any amount they choose on the cost of their manufacture by reason of the increased duty.

Mr. CLARK. That is the explanation of that thing, entirely.

Mr. GALES. The consumers and the distributers are generally interested, but it is not concrete. It is spread abroad. We are on good terms with the manufacturers. We do not ask for anything that is

unreasonable.

Mr. HILL. You come here for the same reason the manufacturer comes in order that you may make more money?

Mr. GALES. Well, it is human nature, I suppose. I have decided that the manufacturers exhibit a good deal of human nature. A reasonable tariff is what we think we stand for.

Mr. CLARK. If you get a revenue tariff, you will be getting in the neighborhood of what you desire.

Mr. GALES. I am a Republican

Mr. CLARK. You ought to be a Democrat, if you want what you say you do. If you have stated what you want, and you want what you say here you want, you ought to be a Democrat. You will never get it from the Republicans.

Mr. GALES. I did not read my full notes. My full notes state that if you do not make the change now four years later it will be too late. The CHAIRMAN. I want to say this to you: If you are interested as an importer, and if you have the time and will give us the facts showing where this duty ought to be reduced, we will reduce it. The majority of this committee will do it.

Mr. GALES. I am much obliged to you.

The CHAIRMAN. And the reporter who took down the remark of Mr. Clark will not publish what I say.

Mr. CLARK. Yes; he ought to.

The CHAIRMAN. No; he will not publish it.

Mr. CLARK. He ought to publish what I say, and he ought to publish what you say.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, he will not.

Mr. GALES (exhibiting a paper to the chairman). Does not that show the reasonableness of our position?

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I called attention a few moments ago to the fact that it seemed to me the obligation resting upon this gentleman was the same obligation which the committee has imposed on gentlemen on the other side-that he should show the difference in the cost of the foreign and domestic manufacture justifying the reduction, just as they will be compelled to show the difference in the cost justifying an increase.

Mr. GALES. I will simply explain, in answer to that, that it is a much more difficult proposition to explain guns, no two of which are alike, than it is to explain a bar of iron or a bar of steel, in which each item is identical.

Mr. HILL. It is not any more difficult to explain guns than it is to show the difference between growing lemons in California and growing them in Italy.

Mr. GALES. They are not the same lemons.

75941-H. Doc. 1505, 60-2-vol 3- -5

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Hill has stated one theory that we want the facts on. Now, I want the facts on an entirely different theory, to find how the consumer is going to be benefited. If you can get both sets of those figures, I think the obligation is on you just as much as it is on the manufacturer.

Mr. HILL. Certainly.

Mr. CLARK. What the members of this committee really want, I take it, whether Democrats or Republicans, is to get at the facts. Mr. HILL. That is right.

Mr. CLARK. It does not make any difference how differently we use the facts after we get them. Mr. Hill and his confreres, the Republicans, will use them to establish one theory. I, and the gentlemen operating with me, will perhaps use the same set of facts to prove another theory; but we have a right to the facts on both sides of the subject.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has a right to speak for his side, and to establish his theory. This side will use the facts to make an honest revision of the tariff.

Mr. CLARK. We will make an honest one, too, if we can.

The CHAIRMAN. I never knew of your doing it yet. (To Mr. Gales.) You have simply submitted a statement of the imports. We have those figures in the public records. You do not give us any enlightenment at all, by bringing those. What we want to know is the price at which those guns are landed from abroad at New York, and what it costs to make them here.

Mr. HILL. Those guns, or similar guns.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; those guns. Not the identical ones, of course. He understands that. That is what we want. It throws a great deal more light upon the matter than does the amount of the importations.

Mr. GALES. The guns are not similar.

Mr. BONYNGE. They do not come in competition then, do they? Mr. GALES. They do. There are no two qualities that are identical. Mr. BONYNGE. You can show the cost of the different guns that come in competition, can you not?

Mr. GALES. In direct competition?

Mr. BONYNGE. Or that come indirectly in competition?

Mr. GALES. They do not come in direct competition. The two are side by side, but they are different. They are not the same guns. Mr. CLARK. But if they are the same in general make-up, they are classed as the same sort of guns, are they not?

Mr. GALES. They may be classed as double or single guns.

Mr. CLARK. If you have a pot-metal pistol that comes from Europe, and one that comes from the United States, lump them together; and if you find a magazine gun that is made in Europe, and one that is made in the United States, class them together.

Mr. GALES. The magazine guns are all made in this country, and the rifles are all made in this country.

The CHAIRMAN. If a manufacturer should come in and show a very large importation of a particular class of goods for the last two or three years, you would not expect us to jump at it and put a tariff duty on. He might get one that would stop the importation altogether. Now, look at it from both sides, and make out your case from that standpoint. Do you bring in government reports of importations.

Mr. GALES. Mr. Chairman, I have been in business for years, and I have seen the gradual decrease of the imported article and the increase of the American article.

Mr. HILL. That might be because of the superiority of American workmanship, or the method of manufacture, and all that.

Mr. GALES. I say, that is true. Now, if we want to exclude the foreign goods completely

The CHAIRMAN. We are neither manufacturers nor importers. At least, I am not. I am simply trying to decide this question, as between the two sides. I want to arrive at an honest decision.

Mr. GALES. You do not take the position that it is a crime to import, do you?

The CHAIRMAN. Not at all.

Mr. GALES. Or that importers have not certain rights?

The CHAIRMAN. I have never taken that position, and I do not know that anybody ever has.

Mr. GALES. Well, I will not say that anybody on this bench has, but that seemed to be the position of some of the witnesses that you had to-day.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think so?

Mr. GALES. I think so; yes-two or three of them.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not hear anything of that kind. You may have.

Mr. GALES. One man said that he believed-two men said that they believed in a duty which would positively prohibit imports.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I do not, so I do not agree with them.
Mr. GALES. Well, I would be

The CHAIRMAN. I do not believe in a duty that destroys our manufactures, either.

Mr. GALES. Nor do I. I do not want to pull them down at all. The CHAIRMAN. Then, on those two points you and I agree.

Mr. GALES. I do not want to pull them down. I want to keep the thing on a middle level with them. We do not want to make combinations against them, as they have against us.

The CHAIRMAN. You want us to act in your favor, without knowledge, and we do not want to do it.

Mr. GALES. They jacked up the duty under this last schedule very largely.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you had the same opportunity to appear. Mr. GALES. Do you mean in 1897?

The CHAIRMAN. In 1897; yes.

Mr. GALES. Well, we did appear in 1897, but the trouble was that the committee was against us then.

The CHAIRMAN. I presume if you appeared in 1897 you did then what you do now, and simply brought in government statistics showing what the amount of importations had been. You do not show the difference in the cost. That does not help us at all.

Mr. CLARK. Now, you have been advised by both sides and it is for you to get the figures.

Mr. GALES. I will be glad to send them in at any time within four or five days.

Mr. CLARK. Any time before the 4th day of December.

Mr. GALES. All right. I will send them in. I thank you gentle

men.

EXHIBIT A.

The following figures include muskets, muzzle-loading shotguns, and parts thereof; pistols, revolvers, and parts thereof; shotguns, double-barrel, sporting, breech-loading, combination shotguns and rifles, and parts thereof; gunstocks and all other parts of guns or rifles:

BRIEF SUBMITTED BY MANUFACTURERS OF DOUBLE-BARREL BREECH-LOADING SPORTING SHOTGUNS ASKING MAINTENANCE OF PRESENT DUTIES ON FIREARMS.

WASHINGTON, D. C., November 28, 1908.

To the Hon. SERENO E. PAYNE,

Chairman, and Members of the Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: In reference to the hearings now being held before your honorable committee upon the subject of tariff revision, we, manufacturers of double-barrel breech-loading sporting shotguns, representing a large majority of those actively engaged in such industry in the United States, do urgently petition that the present Dingley tariff, act of July 24, 1897, in so far as it affects such arms and parts thereof, be maintained without change for the following reasons:

(1) Notwithstanding the protection afforded this industry by the Dingley schedule there have been imported into this country during the ten years since it went into effect until June, 1907, 1,144,361 double-barrel breech-loading shotguns, which come directly into competition with those manufactured in the United States.

(2) By reason of the protection afforded under the present schedule we were encouraged to increase our capital investment, enlarge our facilities, increase the volume of our output, and thereby reduce the selling prices to the consumer.

(3) Our cost of labor has been increased 20 to 25 per cent on account of the general prosperity and increased demand for labor in the metal-working industries generally under the present tariff.

(4) We desire also that the present tariff on component parts of such guns, as well as on the finished guns, be maintained, lest, as in former years, under a previous schedule, such guns be imported in parts and assembled after passing the customs free, thus evading the duty, which defect and abuse of the principle of the law has been corrected by the present tariff act.

(5) A manufactured gun is more than 80 per cent labor. In this industry our labor costs three times that of the same class in foreign countries.

(6) We further request that shotgun barrels in single tubes forged rough bored and gun blocks for gunstocks rough hewn, or sawed, or planed on one side, be continued on the free list as at present, because their manufacture or production can not be economically undertaken in this country.

(7) While the protection afforded under the present schedule has enabled us to partly hold our home market, we have not been able to meet foreign competition in any neutral territory.

(8) A double-barrel breech-loading shotgun is a luxury, and every argument to be urged in favor of a protective tariff applies with the greatest force to an industry of this character.

(9) The manufacturers of double-barrel breech-loading shotguns are not in any trust, combination, or agreement, either expressed, implied, secretly understood, or otherwise, for any purpose, and never have been. The purchaser, therefore, receives the benefit of the lowest price at which our product can be manufactured and sold in open competition.

In reference to the testimony of Mr. Joseph Gales, importer, introduced at this hearing, we beg to state:

That the said importer is of the firm or company of Schoverling, Daly & Gales, of the city of New York, engaged in the business of importing and interested in the production of certain foreign-made, double-barreled, breech-loading shotguns, known as the Sauer, Daly and Stake guns, and others.

The reduction of imports according to the figures submitted by him are misleading as to arms of this class, included as they are in the totals of all classes of arms and parts thereof in said figures.

Statistics from the government reports show the total importations of double-barrel shotguns during the first year of the operation of the present tariff act to have been 49,733, and in 1907 (ten years later) 44,185-a comparative decrease of only 11 per cent.

The fact that American double-barrel shotguns are sold at prices. ranging from $8 to $500 further refutes the statement of said importer that they do not compete with all grades of foreign-made guns.

The importer states that four new factories have been started for the purpose of manufacturing firearms in this country. If this be true, it is also true that foreign and domestic competition have resulted in the lowering of prices of double-barrel shotguns to such extent that a larger number of such factories have discontinued.

Without increased cost to the consumer the American manufacturers of double-barrel guns are now furnishing guns better in quality than ever before. To meet the demand for medium and low-priced guns, new grades have been established at prices 35 to 50 per cent lower than the average prices prevailing when the present schedule went into effect.

While we have not asked for an increase, we assert that the maintenance of the present tariff rates on double-barreled sporting breech-loading shotguns is absolutely necessary to the existence of this industry.