ford, Pa.; J. W. Barber Co., Manayunk, Pa.; Geo. Brooks & Son Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; Bennett & Aspden Co., Manayunk, Pa.; Bromley Manufacturing Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; W. S. Deibert Co., Elk Mills, Md.; Robert Lewis Co., Bridesburg, Pa.; John Moore Sons & Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; Moss Rose Manufacturing Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; National Tapestry Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; Herbert B. Newton, Philadelphia, Pa.; Orinoka Mills, Philadelphia, Pa.; Philadelphia Tapestry Mills, Philadelphia, Pa.; R. J. & R. Ritchie Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; Geo. Royale & Co., Frankford, Pa.; Fred'k Rumpf's Sons, South Langhorne, Pa.; J. M. Schwehm's Sons, Germantown, Pa.; Stead & Miller Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; Whitely & Collier, Philadelphia, Pa.: Zenith Mills, Philadelphia, Pa.; Penn Tapestry Co., Glen Riddle, Pa.; W. T. Smith & Co., Philadelphia, Pa.)

Pars. 264 and 265.-COTTON HOSIERY.

HOSIERY MANUFACTURERS' LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, PER C. H. BROWN, CHAIRMAN, NEW YORK CITY.

NEW YORK, N. Y., February 5, 1913.

Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD,
Chairman Ways and Means Committee,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: The Democratic Party, through its leaders, has stated that no industry need fear that it will not receive adequate tariff protection if it can be shown that it is not conducting its business by means of combinations or trade restraint and that unreasonable profits are not made as a result of tariff protection.

Having full confidence in the promise of the Democratic Party. American manufacturers of hosiery respectfully request you to allow the present rates of duty on hosiery to remain as they are, basing our request on facts and statistics which we submit for your consideration. Without hesitation we claim that a reduction in rates of duty on hosiery will be destructive to the industry, without any gain to the consumer or to the revenue of the Government. When the Dingley law was revised, hosiery manufacturers asked for a slight increase in duty to equalize the difference between cost of production here and abroad, eliminating "added profit," contending that the increase would not raise the retail price of hosiery or materially reduce the revenue. Their forecast has proved correct, for, notwithstanding the higher price of cotton and advance in wages, better hosiery has been offered the consumer than ever before in the history of the industry and the revenue collected has remained practically the same.

During the operation of the Dingley law the hosiery industry was not in a prosperous condition. In 1908-9 very few hosiery mills were running full time; consequently, it is a fair assumption that a return to the rates of duty in the Dingley law, or lower, would force hosiery manufacturers again to either run mills on short time or reduce wages to a point where they could compete with foreign goods.

In considering the tariff on hosiery it should be kept in mind that for 20 years certain custom-fixed retail prices have prevailed, which the retailers have never been able to overcome or change to any appreciable extent. These prices are 25 cents, 35 cents, 50 cents, and so

on the pair; consequently hosiery can not be accused of contributing to the high cost of living.

A reduction in rates of duty on hosiery will not lessen the cost to the consumer we think is fully proved by the following figures, showing what the manufacturer gets and what the consumer pays:

Manufacturers' selling price: $1.85 to $1.90, $2.35 to $2.55, $3.30 to $3.50 per dozen pairs. What consumer pays: $3 per dozen, or 25 cents per pair; $4.20 per dozen, or 35 cents per pair; $6 per dozen, or 50 cents per pair.

We protest against a provision for ad valorem duties on hosiery, and ask that the present specific-duty method be continued. It has proved satisfactory to manufacturers by reducing undervaluations, and has very materially increased the revenue of the Government, whereas in the past ad valorem duties have worked to the detriment of all concerned, making undervaluations easy of accomplishment, due to the difficulty experienced by customs examiners in properly establishing the value of the various grades of hose.

We present a comparison between the Payne law and the Underwood cotton bill of 1912, showing the effect on values of the three grades of hose which received an increase in duty in the Payne law, based on the official import figures for the month of December, 1912, received from the collectors at the ports of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, and St. Louis.

Several thousand dozens of hose, intended to retail at 25 cents per pair, entered the United States in December, 1912, at 80 cents per dozen pairs, foreign value, which, under the Underwood rate of 40 per cent ad valorem, would make the landing value $1.12 per dozen pairs.

No trust or combination has ever existed in the hosiery branch of the cotton industry, and, owing to the small amount of capital required to engage in the business, never can exist.

During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1912, over 30 per cent of the total consumption of fashioned hose was imported, proving active competition between the foreign and American hosiery manufacturers; 695,627,654 pairs of hose have been imported in 15 years, proving that rates of duty on hosiery are not now, or ever have been, prohibitive.

There are but few articles manufactured in this country in which the raw-material cost is so small a part of the production cost; consequently a reduction in duty must work injury to labor.

It seems unwise and unjust to lower a rate of duty unless it can be proven that the price to the consumer will be reduced, and in all

fairness it must be admitted that hosiery retail prices have not changed in 20 years.

Basing our opinion on the proved results under the Dingley law, we contend that a reduction in the rates of duty on hosiery will increase foreign competition, materially reduce the number of hosiery employees, force a reduction in wages, with no gain in revenue, nor enable the consumer to buy hosiery cheaper than he has for the past 20 years.

Yours, respectfully,

HOSIERY MANUFACTURERS' LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, By C. H. BROWN, Chairman.

[Inclosure.]

HOW GERMAN HOSIERY

MANUFACTURERS VIEW THE SITUATION.

[Translated from the Deutsche Wirker Zeitung of Nov. 28, 1912, Chemnitz, Germany.] "In the stocking industry new hopes were recently based upon the election of a Democratic President of the United States, which would eventually result in large sales of "cotton manufacture."

"Even if there was no lack of orders from other sources to have everywhere sufficient work, a large demand on the part of the United States would immediately put prices on a sound basis.

"This is only possible when factories are offered so many orders that they have the choice to manufacture what is best suited to them. Up to now they had to book orders which showed very little, if any, profit in order to keep the machines going."

The same paper says on January 16, 1913:

"If it should become true that the United States should put in effect lower duties, one might assert that it is not impossible to again see a return of the good old times in the hosiery industry."

Cost of producing one dozen pairs of fashioned hose retailing at 25 cents, 35 cents, and 50 cents per pair.

Cost of producing one dozen pairs of fashioned hose, étc.—Continued.

Hosiery imports for years ending June 30, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912.

1898.

1899.

1900.

1901.

1902.

1903.

1904.

1905.

1906.

1907.

1908.

1909.

1910.

1911.

1912.

Total.

Total imports of hosiery from June 30, 1898, to June 30, 1912.

695,627,654.44 pairs of hose imported in 15 years.

F. H. C. SMITH (HOME ADDRESS NOT GIVEN).

Hon. F. M. SIMMONS,

THE SHERIDAN,

Washington, D. C., May 16, 1913.

Chairman United States Senate Finance Committee,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Some days ago I sent you a letter asking your attention to a certain phase of the hosiery manufacturing situation in the United States, with reference to its tariff needs at the present time.

After hearing the statements of you gentlemen of the Finance Committee upon the floor of the Senate this afternoon, in which you made plain your anxiety to hear from all interested persons in regard to conditions, circumstances, and facts bearing upon the tariff require ments of their industries, I have decided to ask your attention to other features of this matter.

You will pardon me for saying that I am a southern Democrat and believe in the tariff teachings of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

I am personally interested in the success of one particular domestic hosiery plant; I feel a much greater interest in the industry as a whole; and I feel a far more exceeding interest in the welfare of the thousands of American born citizens who are earning a livelihood in the daily work which come to them through this industry.

I should like to say first that neither myself nor anyone associated with me in business has said a word in any way to any member of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives in regard to this matter. We felt from the first that all worthy interests would be treated fairly.

Whatever reasons there may have been in the past for placing higher duties upon the higher-priced hosiery, and lower duties upon the lower-priced goods, I am certain that with 70 cents as the divid ing line these reasons would not now obtain. On the other hand, if there are any good business reasons for making a difference at all, the higher rates must logically be placed upon many of the items costing less than 70 cents per dozen.