Colonel CLARKE. I think it is. Mr. HILL. Undoubtedly. Why and on what ground should these men come before this committee and ask for such a change in the duty as you say will extend their foreign market and injure their home market? Colonel CLARKE. Perhaps they do not take that view of it. Mr. HILL. It is quite evident that they do not take that view of it, but I did not know but what you might give us the ground on which you think they acted. Colonel CLARKE. I had no knowledge, before coming before the committee, that there was any such request from Massachusetts, and I do not know the motives of those men. Mr. HILL. I think I can tell you what one of their arguments is. Colonel CLARKE. They fear that the French will raise the duty against them, and therefore they want a tariff on which a trade interest can be made, and that is their reason for asking for a minimum tariff. Mr. RANDELL. Is it not a fact that the tariff on hides has not had a real, fair test in reference to the matter of raising the price of cattle, because three-fourths of the importations have been cut out from being a revenue by a ruling of the department applying the tax only to hides of 25 pounds and over? Is not that a fact? Colonel CLARKE. I do not know whether that is a ruling of the department or a provision of the law. Mr. RANDELL. But do they not trim the foreign hide so as to send in the better part of it, and bring the hide in under the 25-pound provision, so that the average hide that comes in from South America and other countries comes at the weight of about 22 pounds; is not that a fact? Colonel CLARKE. I do not know about that. Mr. CALDERHEAD. Do I understand you to say that that is a ruling of the department? Mr. RANDELL. Some of the witnesses were talking that way, and I will say that is the ruling; the department ruled on it in that way. That is not the law; it is a ruling of the department. Do you not think that the situation is just about this, that there is just enough pressure brought to bear in favor of taking off the tariff on hides, and enough consent given to get the pressure in that direction, so that before this thing winds up and this bill should become a law, the producers of hides will have no tariff on their product, and the producers of leather and shoes will still have the tariff, just the same? Is not that about the situation? Colonel CLARKE. That may be what would please them. Mr. RANDELL. That is what I think will be the result. Colonel CLARKE. But, so far as I am concerned, I am in favor of protecting every domestic article that is subject to foreign competition. Mr. RANDELL. I am in favor of protecting the American people and letting these business men stand on their proper business basis. Colonel CLARKE. The shoe-manufacturing industry has generally been very prosperous since this Dingley duty was put on, not because of it, perhaps, but in spite of it, maybe. At any rate, it has been largely owing to the general prosperity of the country. Mr. RANDELL. Had we not better take it off and give them a fair chance? Mr. CALDERHEAD. If it were taken off, do you think our eighty millions of people would be any better off than they are now? Colonel CLARKE. I do not. Mr. CALDERHEAD. Would they get any cheaper shoes? Colonel CLARKE. They would not get cheaper shoes unless they were cheaper in quality. Mr. CALDERHEAD. Unless they were cheaper in quality? Colonel CLARKE. Yes. The shoe manufacturers, as was testified to here the other day, have got the processes of manufacture down to a fine point of economy, and they can not reduce the price without reducing the quality. Mr. RANDELL. If the tariff was taken off, do you mean to say that would let foreign shoes into the market? Colonel CLARKE. I think it would. Mr. RANDELL. Then, would not that reduce the price? Mr. RANDELL. Then why do they not come in with the price not reduced? What difference does it make about a tariff if the price remains the same? What difference does that make about the importations? Colonel CLARKE. Up to within a year Mr. RANDELL. Please answer that question, if you can. Colonel CLARKE. I will, if I can. I do not know that I can. Up to within a year Americans would not wear foreign-made shoes to any extent, except a few finer shoes made in France, but now that the United Shoe Machinery Company's machines are in use, and American styles are copied so that experts can not tell the difference in the two kinds, the cheaper-labor country will get the foreign markets. Mr. CALDERHEAD. And when your cheaper-labor country gets the markets, will the price of meat be any better in this country? Colonel CLARKE. I think it will be less. You can not impair the producing power of the people, you can not strike down one great industry, without all industries suffering, and these men who are clamoring to have the duty on shoes taken off simply do not know what they are talking about. Mr. RANDELL.. They are very successful shoe men, are they not? Colonel CLARKE. Some of them are very successful shoe men. Mr. RANDELL. And they say they have got a cinch on the markets of the world outside of the home market. Colonel CLARKE. Their exportation has been growing well. Mr. RANDELL. Do you not think they know more about that than you do? Colonel CLARKE. I do. I cheerfully agree that they have more technical knowledge of their business than I would assume for a moment to have. Mr. Pou., Are not any of these foreign manufactured shoes coming into this country now? Colonel CLARKE. Hardly any, now. But I am apprehensive, as Mr. Jones expressed himself to me in conversation, that our market will be invaded. Mr. Pou. I was asking that purely for information. I did not know. Colonel CLARKE. Since you have alluded to the men and their interests in this matter, allow me to say that two or three years ago, when the question of reciprocity with Cuba and the free-hide questions were uppermost in Massachusetts discussions, some workingmen in Lynn, which is a great shoe town, united in a protest against it on account of the fact of the great disparity in wages between this country and other countries, and they gave a table of those wages taken from consular reports. I shall be happy to furnish a copy of that protest, if the committee would like to see it. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further? That is all, Colonel. Is there any other gentleman who would like to be heard on the tariff question to-night? If not, we will take a recess until to-morrow morning at 9.30. (Thereupon, at 5.35 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Saturday, December 5, 1908, at 9.30 a. m.) APPENDIX. SCHEDULE A.-CHEMICALS OILS AND PAINTS. ALIZARIN ASSISTANT AND CASTOR OIL. BOSSON & LANE, ATLANTIC, MASS., MANUFACTURERS OF DYESTUFFS, URGE THAT DUTIES BE NOT LOWERED ON ALIZARIN ASSISTANT AND CASTOR OIL. Hon. Wм. K. PAYNE, ATLANTIC, MASS., November 27, 1908. Clerk Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. DEAR SIR: We respectfully desire to call the committee's attention to Schedule A, paragraphs 32 and 33, in the tariff law, act of June 24, 1897, relating to alizarin assistant, etc., and castor oil, respectively, these two products being so closely related in our manufacturing business that a proper consideration of one is difficult without including the other. We earnestly hope that the tariff will not be reduced on either alizarin assistant or castor oil, but beg to suggest that the clause in paragraph 32 which provides that in the manufacture of alizarin assistant which contains a less per centum of castor oil than 50 duty shall be 15 cents per gallon, might be eliminated, together with balance of paragraph, which provides that a tariff of 30 per cent ad valorem be charged for alizarin assistant not otherwise specified. We believe that practically all of the alizarin assistant being imported to this country is just below 50 per cent, say 49 per cent, and therefore pays a duty of only 15 cents per gallon, not quite 2 cents per pound. This competition in connection with home competition, which is very keen, leaves a very small margin of profit. The present price of castor oil in this country is, in car lots, 9 cents per pound. To make a 49 per cent alizarin assistant it costs: For castor oil. For making....... Total Cents per pound. 4. 6550 1.00 5. 6550 not adding anything for selling, depreciation, etc. We are told by parties who claim to know that castor oil in England costs from 5 to 5 cents per pound. To make the same quality of alizarin assistant in England, and castor oil at 5 cents per pound, 49 per cent, would cost: Other expenses, such as extra cartage, custom-house fees, etc., would increase this somewhat, and we are not sure that this includes a profit on the castor oil. However, it seems to us that any reduction whatever of the present rate would be a hardship upon the home manufacturers. During the operation of the Wilson bill we sold the imported English goods, but when the act of 1897 became a law we resumed the manufacture of alizarin assistant, and within a few years we bought a factory property and began the manufacture of castor oil. This product we use almost exclusively in the manufacture of alizarin assistant and other castor-oil products. We think that the present duty on castor oil of 35 cents per gallon, which is equivalent to 4.373 cents per pound, is none too much in the way of protection, for we have to pay 25 cents per bushel on castor seed (Schedule G, par. 254), this charge being equal to 1 cents per pound toward the cost of manufacturing the oil. The cost of castor oil varies according to price of seed and the yield of oil to the bushel. Based upon our last purchase of castor seed, the oil costs 8.69 cents per pound, including cost of package, freight, etc., but not including any depreciation. The selling price in car lots is 93 cents per pound. While home competition is an important factor in keeping the margin of profit so close, we doubt if it would be possible to add onefourth cent per pound to the present selling price on account of the lower cost of producing castor oil both in England and in India, where the labor is so much less than with us, it being in India about 14 cents per day and in England practically one-half of what we have to pay. Then we have the duty on the seed (14 cents per pound of oil), the freight on the seed, which figures nearly three times as much per pound of oil as England has to pay, and the item of waste (dirt in the seed), upon which we pay duty, is at times very considerable. The castor-seed pomace sells in England at an advance over our price of about 25 per cent. Our packages cost more than the English package. We have never used American castor seed, but have investigated it somewhat and found it poor, very poor in castor-oil value, and we do not know now whether any castor seeds are being raised in the United States or not. In this connection it might seem pertinent to suggest that provided the present duty on castor seed is not beneficial to the farmer, and we believe that a crop natural to the climate is already being raised at a good profit, then why not reduce or eliminate the duty on castor seed, thus reducing the price of castor oil to the consumer? We believe in protecting the farmer as well as the manufacturer, but it may be questionable if it is good business to place a premium on a farm product where the climate is wholly unsuited and the risk is great, but where protection could be given rather on a product natural to the soil and climate. This is only a passing thought; we believe, however, that a reduction on the seed, leaving the present rate on the oil, would stimulate the castor oil and castor-oil products industries in this country. To reduce the rate on castor oil, even though the rate on the seed should be reduced, would leave the castor oil manufacturer without any inducement to enlarge his works, as the present margin of profit is too close. We wish to call special attention to the present phraseology of paragraph 32 in Schedule A, where it reads "by whatever name known, whether |