UNDERVALUATION AND ORIENTAL COMPETITION. 1749 to America at a less price than it was sold to be used in England, and yet the Government raised it to the average price in England. Mr. HOVEY. I have no doubt that obtains at times. It must necessarily obtain. It seems to me, if I may say one word more-I dealt on this point at some length the last time I appeared before your honorable committee-that so long as a stool pigeon, a man who has no interest whatsoever in the merchandise which he enters at the New York custom-house, is permitted to stand as the bona fide importer of these goods, so long will the United States Government have trouble in collecting its duties; and I ask any gentleman here what reason, other than a dishonest one, can suggest to a merchant in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Chicago the putting out of his hands, temporarily you may say, but even for a second of time, the right, title, and interest to his merchandise, which he has paid for and which he owns; and yet the records of the New York custom-house will show that a large quantity of goods are daily being imported into New York for John Jones, who is the real owner of the goods, by Charles Smith, who has no interest in the goods whatsoever. When I brought that matter to the attention of the Secretary of the Treasury I was told that it could not be stopped. Far be it from me, not being a lawyer, to combat that opinion. I simply say this: That when I was an importer of merchandise from Calcutta and China and Japan of goods which arrived in this country, via San Francisco, I furnished the Central Pacific Railroad power of attorney by which and under which they made entry of my merchandise in my name, and I see no reason why that same rule should not obtain on merchandise coming over the border-either our northern border through Canada or southern border through Mexico-or certainly through the port of New York; and yet the name of the bona fide importer is disclosed when the importation is known and the entry is made. The result is that in many instances, as you will find by investigation, the man who is responsible to the United States Government for the payment of those duties is not on record as having sworn to the fact that he does not know of any other invoice. The stool pigeon can do that and not put himself open to a charge of perjury. The CHAIRMAN. Your experience has brought you into close connection with the manufacturers of textiles? Mr. HOVEY. Entirely so. The CHAIRMAN. What is your experience in reference to the extent of the undervaluation of textiles? Take, for example, the woolen schedule, which is largely ad valorem? Mr. HOVEY. I think it is very large. The CHAIRMAN. Would you undertake to say what you would judge to be the average undervaluation? Mr. HOVEY. I could not do that, Mr. Chairman. On silks I believe I am on record before this committee as having expressed an opinionwhich I said was rather a tentative one-that the duty was 40 per cent, and that I didn't think we collected over 35 per cent. The CHAIRMAN. The duty under the present law on wools, except a small body of the cheaper goods, is 50 per cent. Mr. HOVEY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Is it your judgment that as a matter of fact the Government gets much over 35 per cent of the real valuation of those goods? Mr. HOVEY. I don't think it does. At the same time I desire to be placed on record as saying that it is very difficult to name any percentage. The records of the boards of general appraisers will prove my point. I do not go, and need not go, beyond the records of the Treasury Department to prove my point. UNDERVALUATION AND ORIENTAL COMPE TITION. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: NEWBURGH, N. Y., December 28, 1896. I most earnestly recommend a specific duty on silk goods, whether the same be made from all-worm silk or part silk or any substitute for silk. Ad valorem duties open the gates for undervaluations and has been the curse of the present tariff. A specific duty enables the custom-house officers to determine the amount of duty to be paid at the port of entry by simply getting at the weight of the goods. The labor on silk goods costs in Japan about 25 cents per pound. In this country it costs about $5.25 per pound. Labor that costs here from $1.50 to $2.50 per day can be obtained in Japan from 5 to 8 cents per day. The Japanese, in addition to the cheap labor, have the most improved machinery to work with. Within the past few years they have ruined the manufacture in this country of any class of goods they have taken hold of. I refer you to Robert Porter, ex-Superintendent of United States Census, who has recently been in Japan, to confirm what I say in this regard. I also refer you to Vice-President-elect Hobart, who is familiar with the effects of Japanese competition on the silk industry of this country. Silk goods should pay a duty of at least $5.25 per pound. I repeat that this duty should be laid on all goods made wholly or in part of silk or any silk substitutes. I think that raw silk, as well as spun silk, should be admitted free. Raw silk is now and has been free for many years, as it can not be produced in this country. Spun silk has been paying a duty of about 30 per cent, and is only produced here to a very limited extent. SAXONY MANUFACTURING CO. Bilyeu, W. H., silk hosiery.. 1744 Bister & Schmitt, reclassification of silk schedule recommended....... 1745 |