Mr. LESSLER. Yes, sir; for horses, cows, and cattle.

The CHAIRMAN. Anything besides that?

Mr. LESSLER. Yes, for hoof stuffing. They combine this product with greases and oils and use it for stuffing the hoofs of horses and that is all.

Mr. CLARK. As I understand it you take peat moss and mix it with oils of some kind, and greases, and put it under the hoofs of horses. Do you know what kind of oil is used for that purpose?

Mr. LESSLER. Mr. Durbrow can tell you.

Mr. CLARK. The reason I asked was that that is a very common affliction of horses, when their feet get dry and it is hard to keep their shoes on; and it finally develops into what might be called corns on their feet. It seems like a ridiculous proposition, but it is the truth. Mr. LESSLER. You can ascertain in regard to that from Mr. Durbrow.

STATEMENT OF MR. WALTER DURBROW, OF No. 160 PEARL STREET, NEW YORK CITY.

Mr. DURBROW. I do not desire to take up but very little time of the committee. The original peat moss was brought in free of duty, and at that time we imported about 15,000 tons a year. As Mr. Lessler says, the duty was put on, and the imports have fallen down to about 8,000 tons. Out West they claimed that they had peat moss, and that they could manufacture it if they were protected. As a matter of fact, they never have had commercial peat moss out there for our purposes, and they never have come into the market with their product. Our only object in trying to get this duty off is to extend the business, which would be to our benefit and also to the benefit of the consumer, as peat moss is about the best bedding that can be put under a horse. My object in coming down was so as to be able to answer any questions that might be asked with regard to the matter. I will give you any information that I have. I have samples here of the two products, if you would like to see them, the domestic and the foreign, which will show you absolutely that they can not be used for the same purpose.

Mr. BOUTELL. I understand that this was not free under the Wilson Act, but it was under the McKinley Act?

Mr. DURBROW. Under the McKinley Act; yes, sir.

Mr. CLARK. Are you the gentleman who knows about the practical operation of this?

Mr. DURBROW. I have been in the business for twenty-three years. Mr. CLARK. How do you fix it so as to keep the horse's hoof from drying up?

Mr. DURBROW. We make a paste by using crude vaseline and coal oil, glycerine, and carbolic acid. The peat moss serves to hold those things together, with the tannin and other things in the peat moss. Mr. CLARK. Do you manufacture the article?

Mr. DURBROW. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLARK. Where do you put it, in the frog of the hoof?

Mr. DURBROW. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLARK. How do you keep it in there?

Mr. DURBROW. It is packed in there and allowed to remain while the horse is standing in the stable.

Mr. CLARK. I had a buggy horse nearly ruined that way, and I got a paint bucket, filled it up with linseed oil mixed with meal, and I would pick up his feet and put that in the hoof to keep them from becoming dry. I would have to do that with the horse every two or three days.

Mr. DURBROW. I will send you some of it, Mr. Clark. That is the case with most of the products for that purpose, and they harden in the end rather than soften. But I can overcome that difficulty.

The CHAIRMAN. This is imported at about $6 or $7 a ton, is it not? Mr. DURBROw. About $8 a ton.

STATEMENT OF MR. FRED. M. CLEAVELAND, OF WAKEFIELD, MASS.

The CHAIRMAN. What subject will you speak on?

Mr. CLEAVELAND. Upon mats, made of cocoa fiber and rattan, and mattings.

As manufacturers of cocoa fiber and rattan mats and mattings, we ask you to leave unchanged the present schedule in the tariff of 1897, which reads as follows:

Miscellaneous manufactures, par. 452; Matting made of cocoa fiber or rattan, 6 cents per square yard. Mats made of cocoa fiber or rattan, 4 cents per square foot.

Our reasons for asking this are as follows:

The difference between the labor costs of making these mats and mattings in the United States and in foreign countries is from 40 to 60 per cent in favor of the foreign manufacturers.

Öf mats made in the United States the average total cost will be about 16 cents per square foot, of which the cost of labor will be 10 cents per square foot. If made in England, the cost of labor will be not over 6 cents on the average. The duty of 4 cents per square foot is, therefore, the protection needed by us to off-set the cheaper foreign labor.

Of mattings made in the United States the average total cost will be about 30 cents per square yard, of which the labor will amount to 7 cents. If made in England, the cost of labor will be not over 3 cents per square yard. The duty of 6 cents per square yard is, therefore, a protection needed by us to off-set the cheaper foreign labor.

We have made the above comparisons with the prices of goods made in England. There are, however, on the Continent of Europe, particularly in Germany and Belgium, many cocoa mats and matting factories employing both free and convict labor, where the cost of labor is materially less than in England, and from which countries mats and mattings are being imported.

That the present tariff is not prohibitive is shown by the following figures taken from the custom-house statistics:

In the face of this increasing foreign competition, this industry is confronted with a steadily increasing domestic competition from convict institutions, which has very seriously decreased the employment of free labor and reduced prices to a very low level. We feel that we might justly ask for an increase in the duties, but refrain from so doing out of deference to the general sentiment against the higher tariff, but with these conditions confronting us we respectfully ask that the present duties be not reduced so that our business may not be wiped out.

Mr. CRUMPACKER. Do you import the material used in the manufacture?

Mr. CLEAVELAND. All of the cocoa fiber and the original rattan is imported, too.

Mr. CRUMPACKER. What else do you manufacture?

Mr. CLEAVELAND. Practically nothing.

Mr. CRUMPACKER. So practically all of the material is imported?
Mr. CLEAVELAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRUMPACKER. Is there any duty on the raw material?
Mr. CLEAVELAND. There is not.

STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES L. FELDMAN, OF BUFFALO, N. Y.

Mr. FELDMAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I appear here on behalf of the Maltsters Association, of Buffalo, to present to the committee a request for the removal of the duty on barley. The present duty is 30 cents per bushel, which is a prohibitive duty, and was imposed under the present law. Under the law of 1890 it was made 30 cents a bushel, and later, in 1894, it was made 30 per cent ad valorem duty, and under the present law again it was made 30 cents per bushel.

Prior to enactment of the rate of 30 cents per bushel, along the border of our country, in Canada, a large number of malting industries were organized and put into existence, and there was a large investment, which, owing to this prohibitive duty, prevented the Canadian product from entering our country, resulting in the destruction of nearly all of the malting industries in New York and the East, with the possible exception of one or two places.

Now, we contend in our brief, which is filed here, that the removal of this duty will not lessen the price to the American farmer. In the first place, we find the fact to be that the Canadian farmer today receives practically the same sum for his barley that the American farmer does. The difficulty under which my clients labor is substantially this: Gradually a system of elevators, so-called "country elevators," have been inaugurated in the West where the American barley is grown, and it has resulted in a system whereby the barley is controlled by the elevators. They buy their barley and put it on the market at such prices as they see fit to impose. Last year the records show that the farmer received, on an average, 66 cents per bushel, whereas in truth and in fact the market price of the articles. to our people ran as high as $1.15 to $1.18 per bushel, and it was a fluctuating price, so that the maltster who is obliged to buy barley and keep it in the malt house has sustained serious loss, inasmuch as he was obliged to buy when the barley was up, and when he came to put his product on the market the brewer naturally said that the

price was down. We have come to the conclusion-that is, my clients have come to the conclusion-and they want the committee to take this view of it if possible that the importations of Canadian barley will tend to regulate the price of barley; and in view of the fact that the Canadian farmer now has a satisfactory market, it will not result in putting the product in the American market at a lower price than the American farmer now receives; but it will have a tendency to regulate the price on a fair basis, and will tend to regulate the business in such a way that we can go on with our business in a safe and practical manner.

I will not take up the time of the committee by reading a lot of figures. We have set forth our statement in our brief quite fully, and I ask the consideration of the committee to this subject. It is really a very important one to my clients, and I earnestly hope that the committee may see its way clear to grant our request.

The CHAIRMAN. The duty on barley was 10 cents per bushel up to 1890, when it was increased to 30 cents. Under the 10-cent per bushel duty the importations were eleven or twelve million bushels. It was in that neighborhood for several years. Since the 30-cent duty, it has been decreasing so that the importations have practically ceased. The Canadians have stopped raising barley, and have gone into some other business?

Mr. FELDMAN. To some extent that is so.

The CHAIRMAN. Then barley was imported, and malted in Oswego, Rochester, and Buffalo, was it not?

Mr. FELDMAN. Yes, Syracuse and Albany also. There is another fact that I want to add, and that is this, that the western maltsters, of course, being nearer the source of supply had a great advantage over the eastern maltsters. When the freight rates are added it makes an appreciable difference to the eastern people.

The CHAIRMAN. The New York barley, while the Canadian barley was imported; commanded a good price, and was mixed with Canadian barley for malt?

Mr. FELDMAN. Yes, and it is also a fact that the New York farmer has lost his market for barley. There is not any New York barley on the market at the present time.

The CHAIRMN. So that the New York farmers have not produced much barley?

Mr. FELDMAN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And the barley produced now is generally in the Western States?

Mr. FELDMAN. Yes, sir; in a limited section.

Mr. GAINES. Was it necessary to mix New York barley with the Canadian barley?

Mr. FELDMAN. There was no necessity for it excepting that it seemed to produce a malt that was satisfactory to the brewers. It produced a high grade of malt. It is claimed that Canadian and also New York State barley makes a better quality of beer. That is the claim made by some of the leading expert brewers in this country. The CHAIRMAN. That was largely because it was light colored, was it not?

Mr. FELDMAN. It seems to have a lighter color, and also produces a better flavor, so I am advised by my people.

Mr. BOUTELL. With whom did the movement to increase the duty 200 per cent in the McKinley bill originate?

Mr. FELDMAN. I do not know, excepting, as I understand it, it was due to the western representation that the American farmer needed this protection.

Mr. BOUTELL. Which is the greatest barley-producing State now in the United States?

Mr. FELDMAN. Barley is principally produced in Iowa, Wisconsin, and North and South Dakota. I could not tell you which State produces the largest quantity, but it is up in that section.

Mr. CLARK. Did this tariff on barley shut up the breweries along the Canadian border?

Mr. FELDMAN. The malt houses, yes, sir; but not the breweries. It destroyed the malt industry entirely in Oswego and in other sections along the northern frontier.

Mr. CLARK. Do brewers make their own malt or do they buy it already made?

Mr. FELDMAN. They buy it made, largely.

Mr. CLARK. You say the freight rates shut your people out. The freight rates from Dakota and Iowa to Buffalo would not be much more than the freight rates to St. Louis, would they?

Mr. FELDMAN. Not in the season of navigation, but in the winter season when we buy most of our barley, they are higher.

Mr. CLARK. Why don't you buy it when the Lakes are open? Mr. FELDMAN. You have to buy it when it is on the market. Mr. CLARK. That is the very time it is on the market, is it not? Do you know what time they harvest barley?

Mr. FELDMAN. I can not answer that question excepting to say that I have been advised by my clients that they buy barley mostly in the winter season.

Mr. CLARK. What is the reason they do not buy it just after harvesting and ship it by cheap freight?

Mr. FELDMAN. Perhaps one reason is because they were raising the price to $1.15.

Mr. CLARK. But they have to have it if they were going to continue in business.

Mr. FELDMAN. They bought it when they had to have it, and when they had it the price went down, and they had their malt and could not sell it to advantage. That is where they sustained their losses. Mr. CRUMPACKER. Do we export barley?

Mr. FELDMAN. To some extent; yes.

Mr. CLARK. Would it stop the demand for malt if people quit drinking?

Mr. FELDMAN. Not necessarily. I assume that the brewer buys Canadian malt when he can get it to the best advantage.

Mr. CLARK. I was not opposing this proposition of yours, nor advocating it, but was trying to find out the curious fact as to why it put your men out of business. There isn't anything in all the malt in the Mississippi Valley outside of the brewing interest.

Mr. FELDMAN. Of course, speaking as a representative of these interests, I can only state what I am advised. I have not the detailed information.