have cost us 25 cents a pound in 1914, and consider this with regard to our ratio of protection. If our selling price recedes to prewar or 75 cents a pound for the hose we are now selling at approximately $2 a pound, the duty that the foreign manufacturer will pay will be 26 per cent of 75 cents, or 193 cents per pound. Now, under the present schedule if we are required to pay a specific duty of 20 cents per pound (which is 19 cents, plus 1 cent for waste) on 25-cent yarn, this is equal to an ad valorem duty of 80 per cent, while our foreign competitor is paying 26 per cent upon the finished article. The only answer to this appears to be that the price will not recede. Our contention is just as sound that it will recede, and in any event the contingency should be provided against and the American manufacturer protected.

Let us look for the moment at the foreign manufacturer's price and assume, which is substantially correct, that he can manufacture hose for $1.25 per pound, which is comparable to our hose at $2 a pound. This is, of course, accounted for by his cheaper labor and material. Importing this hose at $1.25 he would under the proposed bill pay a duty of 52 cents (26 per cent of $2, the American valuation), which would land his hose in this country at $1.77 per pound, which is 23 cents less than we could sell the same hose for, and this he is able to do notwithstanding the present high prices in Europe, so that if hose in this country reaches the 1914 price of 75 cents per pound the foreign manufacturers' selling price would be about 50 cents a pound. Add to this his duty at 26 per cent, or 19 cents (which is 26 per cent of 75 cents, American valuation), he will be able to sell his product at 69 cents a pound in this market, while if our raw material costs us 25 cents a pound, we pay specific duty on yarns of 20 cents per pound, making the price of our material 45 cents a pound, and we could not sell our hose for less than 75 cents a pound, or 6 cents above the price of our foreign competitor.

All of this justifies us, we think, in asking that even if any duty be imposed on flax-line yarns used in the manufacture of linen fire hose it should, like the finished article, be upon an ad valorem basis, for on a falling market the foreign manufacture gets the advantage and the domestic merchant is penalized.

It will be observed that the proponents of the specific duty on flax-line yarns as reported in the bill are yarn manufacturers. They are unable to supply the demand for suitable flax-line yarn from this country. To place a specific duty upon linen yarns under so broad a classification as they request is to practically put a noncompetitive price upon flax-line yarn, suitable for the manufacture of linen fire hose, upon which they need no protection, for they can not supply it.

The differential between American and foreign labor and raw material is, in our opinion, in the future to be so high as to warrant the duty on linen fire hose being placed as high as 50 per cent ad valorem. This is especially true should your committee deem it advisable to place a specific duty upon the yarn, for the arguments used in the preceding paragraphs should convince one that the differential resulting between the foreign conditions and specific duty and 26 per cent ad valorem on the finished goods is by no means wide enough, and we beg to state that in our opinion the duty upon manufactured linen fire hose should be 50 per cent ad valorem. And, in general, in our opinion the so-called "American valuation" is unscientific and will be a poorly operating system.

We beg to recommend to you the following:

First. The addition to paragraph 1004 of the proposed bill the words: “Provided, That flax-line yarns of 8 lea and not finer than 20 lea, imported solely for the manufacture of linen fire hose, shall be admitted free of duty."

Second. Should it be deemed wise not to adopt the preceding recommendation, then instead of a specific duty on flax-line yarns of 8 lea and not finer than 20 lea, an ad valorem duty of 20 per cent.

Third. A change in paragraph 1007 from 26 to 50 per cent ad valorem. Fourth. In any event, a differential between the ad valorem value of flax-line yarn of 8 lea and not finer than 20 lea, and finished linen fire hose of 30 per cent. EUREKA FIRE HOSE MANUFACTURING Co., Jersey City, N. J.

CHARLES NIEDNER'S SONS Co..

Malden, Mass.

WM. & CHAS. BECK (INC.),

Lawrence, Mass.

LINUS C. COGGAN, Counsel.

STATEMENT OF MR. J. E. BARBOUR, REPRESENTING THE ALLENTOWN SPINNING CO. AND JUTE MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Barbour, are you an official of the Allentown Spinning Co?

Mr. BARBOUR. I am president.

The CHAIRMAN. And are you an official of the Jute Manufacturers' Association?

Mr. BARBOUR. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. How many members are there of that association? Mr. BARBOUR. I am representing 11 manufacturers of jute yarn and twine-practically all in this country.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you proceed to state your views to the committee?

Mr. BARBOUR. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. If you have a printed statement, it would be well for you to leave that with the committee so that it may be printed and simply call attention to the high points that you wish to bring out. That will save our time.

I wish to say at this time that we re ready to send to the witnesses copies of their statements, and it is hoped that the witnesses will return them with any corrections that they think may be necessary so that the reprint of the hearing may be in good form.

Mr. BARBOUR. Very well.

Last January the 11 manufacturers concerned met and presented a brief to the Ways and Means Committee. All that was stated in the brief at that time the conditions of to-day do not alter. They adopted in the House bill practically a great many of these suggestions. However, they altered the grouping there. By the "grouping" I mean they classified a certain number of yarns together. Our manufacturing committee had five of these groups, which was the minimum that they could get along with. The House bill brings in four, and that upsets the whole scheme. They have also reduced. the individual rates.

Senator SMOOT. Does your brief state what you want?

Mr. BARBOUR. Yes.

Senator WATSON. Tell us about your difficulties.

Mr. BARBOUR. It is all in the brief. All we ask for is what was the consensus of opinion of the manufacturers at that time. Senator LA FOLLETTE. How many are there?

Mr. BARBOUR. Eleven.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. There are 11 jute manufactures?
Mr. BARBOUR. Yes; there are really 12 or 13.

The CHAIRMAN. They are located where principally?

Mr. BARBOUR. The Allentown Spinning Co. is in Allentown, Pa.; there are two in Brooklyn, N. Y.; one in Auburn, N. Y.; two in Paterson, N. J.; one in Hanover, Pa.; one in Xenia, Ohio; one in Philadelphia, Pa.; and another in Wilmington, Del.

Senator SMOOт. What you want is an enlarged classification, and you want a change in the rates as covered by the brief?

Mr. BARBOUR. The brief covers that. We want what we asked for in the original brief before the Ways and Means Committee of

the House.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. How does the rate that you asked before the Ways and Means Committee compare with the rate in the PayneAldrich bill? Do you know?

Mr. BARBOUR. I am sorry to have to admit that I can not answer that question. I am sorry, but I have not those figures before me. Senator MCLEAN. How does the grouping compare with the groupings adopted by Congress heretofore?

Mr. BARBOUR. They were never in a group before. In that way the House bill has adopted our suggestion for grouping, but they have reduced the number to below the practical limit.

Senator MCLEAN. What reasons were assigned for this reduction? Mr. BARBOUR. We have not the slightest idea why it should have been done.

Senator MCLEAN. There were no reasons presented to the committee in opposition to your position?

Mr. BARBOUR. None whatever. They have only done it in one

case.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. What is the total value of jute manufactures?

Mr. BARBOUR. The total value of the product manufactured? Senator LA FOLLETTE. Yes; in this country. Mr. BARBOUR. I can give you the pounds. Normally there are about 220,000,000 pounds of raw jute produced in this country to be manufactured.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Raw jute?

Mr. BARBOUR. Yes. Seventy million pounds go in for cotton bagging, which we do not cover. Some mills make some of it. The balance of 150,000,000 is used in thread, twine, and string and for the manufacture of carpets.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Do these 11 plants that you represent here who have agreed to the proposed schedule manufacture cotton bagging?

Mr. BARBOUR. There is one of them -the American Manufacturing Co., in Brooklyn, N. Y.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. What is the total amount of the importations of the manufactures of jute twine, yarn, and bagging?

Mr. BARBOUR. Well, the bagging I do not know about. I can not give you the figures on that other than I have stated. There is not so much bagging brought in here, except what comes from India. That has increased. I can not give you the figures. To-day there is over 50,000,000,000 pounds being used in this country instead of 150. The importations are at the rate of over 1,000,000 a month. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Where do the yarns come from? Mr. BARBOUR. From Calcutta, India, and Dundee, Scotland.

If business were normal there would be three or four times that amount coming into this country, but the carpet manufacturers to-day are afraid to go abroad and place big contracts.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Is there any American capital invested in these foreign manufactures?

Mr. BARBOUR. There is in India. There is one that I am not representing that is putting up a large mill in India.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the name of that concern?
Mr. BARBOUR. The name of the concern?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; the one that is putting up this establishment in India?

Mr. BARBOUR. The Ludlow Manufacturing Association.

The CHAIRMAN. Where are they located?

Mr. BARBOUR. Ludlow, Mass.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Are they one of the 11 companies?

Mr. BARBOUR. No.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Are they connected in any way? Are they among the stockholders or capitalists?

Mr. BARBOUR. That are putting up this outfit in India, you mean? Senator LA FOLLETTE. Yes.

Mr. BARBOUR. I presume so. I have no means of knowing that, and I am not representing the Ludlow Manufacturing Association. Senator LA FOLLETTE. How much labor do you employ in your establishment?

Mr. BARBOUR. Personally, I have between six and seven hundred hands. The total labor employed here in all these mills runs to about 10,000.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Your labor is classified, I suppose? Mr. BARBOUR. It is classified according to our industry. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Yes; according to your industry. certain wages to each class of employees?

Mr. BARBOUR. Yes.

You pay

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Will you file with the committee a statement of the wages that you pay to the various classes in your factory? Mr. BARBOUR. I shall be very glad to do so.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. And the wages which you paid in 1913? Mr. BARBOUR. Yes, sir.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Taken from your books?

Mr. BARBOUR. Yes, sir.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. For each year from 1913 to the present year?

Mr. BARBOUR. I shall be glad to do so; yes, sir.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. And also include in that the salaries paid to the officials of your establishment?

Mr. BARBOUR. All right, sir. Of course, into that must be taken the working hours.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Yes. Please state all that will be helpful to the committee.

Mr. BARBOUR. You want my individual concern only, or do you want the average of all concerns in this country?

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I would like the statement to represent the wages in each of these plants that you represent.

Mr. BARBOUR. In each of these plants that I represent?

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Yes; covering the period that I have mentioned.

Mr. BARBOUR. That is, from 1913 on?

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Yes.

Mr. BARBOUR. I shall be very glad to furnish that information. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Will you kindly state how much increase there was in the wages paid, on the average, in your plant after the war began; that is, after we entered the war?

Mr. BARBOUR. After the war began?

Senator LA FOLLETTE. You increased wages a great deal?
Mr. BARBOUR. Yes.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. To a considerable extent?

Mr. BARBOUR. Yes.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Could you approximate it? Of course, your tables would show. I do not want to take up the time of the committee unduly with that now.

Mr. BARBOUR. The wages went up to almost three times what they were, and in addition there was a reduction in working hours. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Yes.

Mr. BARBOUR. That reduction of 10 per cent in the working hours was worse for the manufactures than the 10 per cent advance in wages, because we have interest, overhead, taxes, and all that to consider.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. How much did prices increase, on the average, during that same period?

Mr. BARBOUR. The prices went up, I suppose, three or four times what they were, due, of course, to the increase in the value of the raw material. That went up, as you know.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. And the increased cost in labor?

Mr. BARBOUR. Yes.

Senator SMOOT. You had a pretty hard time to get stocks for a while, didn't you?

Mr. BARBOUR. No. The jute manufacturers did not have so much difficulty in getting material. It comes from Calcutta, India. The only trouble was that when the submarines were around they would torpedo a ship loaded with it, and we would have to wait for another one.

Senator MCLEAN. Have there been any reductions in price from the high point?

Mr. BARBOUR. To-day?

Senator McLEAN. Yes.

Mr. BARBOUR. Oh, yes; prices to-day are less than half what they

were.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. What is the lowest rate paid to any class of labor which you employ in your plant at the present time? Mr. BARBOUR. I presume it would be the truck boys. Senator LA FOLLETTE. What is called common labor? Mr. BARBOUR. Yes, sir; common labor.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. What are you paying common labor by the hour?

Mr. BARBOUR. I think they are running all the way from $12 to $14 a week, working anywhere from 44 hours on.

The CHAIRMAN. How many men are employed in the industry in

the United States?

Mr. BARBOUR. About 10,000.

It

The CHAIRMAN. What percentage of the industry is now employed? Mr. BARBOUR. I should judge somewhere near 50 per cent. might be a shade more than that.

The CHAIRMAN. I expect only an approximation, you know.
Senator SMOOT. Will you file your brief?

Mr. BARBOUR. I should be very glad to file this brief and have it

made a part of the record.