prices of the poorer qualities become almost prohibitive, and the market supply of the offal from which the poorer grades are obtained is frequently exhausted.

To show that the conditions I have describcd are not exaggerated, I will tell of a little incident which occurred very recently, and which illustrates clearly a condition which prevails in regard to cheap shoes. A neighbor of mine, a teamster, with a large family of children, came to me one morning holding in his hand a pair of boy's shoes, on which the soles had been entirely worn through in (he said) two weeks. He said he knew I was in the shoe business, and thought I would tell him why all his family's shoes wore out so quickly. I examined the pair and found the uppers in good condition, but the insoles shoddy, and the outer soles soft, coarse, and spongy. I told him that leather was high just now, and it would be economy for him to buy the better grades of shoes. "But I can't afford to," he replied. "I pay just as much as I ever did for shoes, but I have had to buy 22 pairs of shoes in the past ten months, and have more to buy before winter, and I can't pay any more for them."

Now, I claim that the 2 cents per pound added to the cost of sole leather and the 2 cents per foot added to the cost of upper leather by the duty on hides, puts a burden on that man that he ought not to be made to bear.

In concluding, let me suggest one thought in relation to the cattlemen who claim that they get some benefit from this duty, and want it continued. It was shown, I believe, by the government investigation of the beef trust that when the cattlemen took their stock to the great slaughtering centers to be sold, that by reason of some arangement or agreement among the packers, they were obliged to sell them at prices which were absolutely uniform, and that they had the benefit of no competition among the purchasers whatever. Does it seem reasonable to suppose that under these conditions, with the control absolutely in their hands, that the packers are voluntarily going to add to the ordinary value of the creature they purchased, the small sum represented by 15 per cent on its hide and present this as a bonus or gratuity to the seller. Is it not perfectly fair to say that the benefit derived by the cattleman from this duty is at best an indirect benefit and of questionable value?

Against this we have to place, on the part of the shoe manufacturer, a very serious impairment of profit, which under normal conditions is necessarily small, an obstacle of almost insurmountable proportions to the retention and development of our foreign trade, and to the poorer classes of our fellowcitizens a very real hardship in the increased cost and inferior quality of one of the prime necessities of life.

I believe all, or, at most, all but one, of the Massachusetts delegation in Congress have expressed themselves clearly in favor of the repeal of this duty, and if on consideration you are convinced of the wisdom of such action at this time and will place the weight of your influence on our side by recommending such legislation in your forthcoming message to the Congress, their cause will be greatly strengthened, and we shall have good ground on which to base the hope and expectation that the task of bringing about this much-desired change will not be too great for their statesmanship to accomplish.

Hon. William B. Rice, of Rice & Hutchins, of Boston, said:

The effect of the hide duty on the export of shoes should not be omitted in this presentation. Our shoe manufacturers are endeavoring to build up a foreign trade. In many cases they have been more or less successful, and last year exported about $8,000,000 worth of shoes in spite of the handicap of the tariff. Through the drawback duty paid on exported leather its effect to-day is to protect the foreign manufacturer against the American manufacturer. It has been stated here by the leather interest that American-made sole leather is sold in foreign markets 2 or more cents a pound cheaper than it is here. The same is true of upper leather when made from foreign hides. Therefore, when American shoe manufacturers go into any foreign country, they are met by competition from British, German, Austrian, and other foreign manufacturers, who use American leather that costs them 4 to 8 cents a pair less than it costs American manufacturers. Is it not wiser for legislation in this country to assist our manufacturers to take the eighteen or twenty million dollars' worth of leather that is now sent abroad into their own factories and add thereto ten or twelve million dollars' worth of American labor, and instead of the $18,000,000 worth of leather export an added $30,000,000 worth of shoes?

Whereupon President John H. Hanan, of the National Boot and Shoe Manufacturers' Association, made the closing address, as follows:

It remains for me, as the official head of the organization whose committee you have heard, to say a word of thanks for the kindness and patience and the honor conferred upon us by giving us your kind attention.

We know well the innumerable demands upon your valuable time, and appreciate that you might have suggested taking our cause direct to Congress, but knowing, as we do, the great respect that all our people and our statesmen hold for your opinion and intentions on all questions of public welfare and the unbounded confidence they have in the wisdom and foresight that has guided you into such great achievements, both at home and abroad, leads us all to believe a careful consideration of the subject in all its bearings will show you that a tariff on hides is entirely unnecessary from an economic standpoint. We know its iniquities are working direct injury alike to producer and consumer; therefore, in the event of your reaching a conclusion favorable to our petition, may we hope you will exercise your sovereign privilege by recommending favorable legislation on this subject in your next message to Congress? Our industry, which ranks among the foremost industries of the country, the value of whose products approximate $300,000,000 in value and distributes in wages $75,000,000 annually among the populations of our cities and villages, will await your decision with deep concern. Blessed, as you have been, with the faculty of doing the right thing at the right time, we can confidently rest our cause in your hands. Our cause is timely, our cause is right.

At the close of President Hanan's remarks, President Roosevelt addressed the delegates as follows:

I thank you for having taken the trouble to come here. I am indeed glad to see you, not only in your personal capacities, but as representatives of one of the great business industries of the country.

Your petition and suggestions, I need hardly say, shall have my most careful consideration. The great interests you represent are exceedingly important. Their welfare is of concern to the whole country. It deserves and will surely receive the painstaking attention of both the President and Congress. It is of course unnecessary to point out that no change in the tariff can be made keeping in view only the interests or desires of one State or one locality. The law must first take tangible shape in the lower House of Congress, and must therefore roughly correspond to the sentiments of the citizens of the several States as expressed through their Representatives therein. Where their interests and therefore the sentiments based on these interests are diverse, as is almost invariably the case in reference to the details of all tariff matters, the law must normally, although not invariably, represent a compromise and mutual concessions, and no one outside of Congress can definitely foretell the exact shape such a compromise will ultimately take.

It is my duty to state that before receiving this committee I had received a letter from the governor-elect of Massachusetts, the Hon. Curtis Guild, jr. In this letter, evidently the first he has written in what may be called the official character with which he is now vested by the suffrages of his fellowcitizens, he urges in the strongest terms an immediate revision of the tariff and especially removing the duty on hides.

The latter from Governor-elect Curtis Guild, jr., of Massachusetts, referred to by President Roosevelt, was as follows:

The Hon. THEODORE ROOSEVELT,

BOSTON, November 10, 1905.

President of the United States, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR Mr. PRESIDENT: We have had a hard-fought election in Massachusetts, but we have been fortunate enough to turn a hostile plurality of 37,000 into a favorable plurality of over 23,000, and in a single year.

The Republican ticket, in my judgment, would have been overwhelmingly defeated if our platform, on which both Mr. Draper and I stood, had not contained a plan indorsing the position taken last spring by our delegation in Congress favoring immediate tariff revision.

61318-SCHED N-09-30

Both parties in this State desire it. We recognize, as Republicans, the magnificent prosperity that has come to us so largely through your own personal work, with a sound basis to our currency, the open-door policy in our foreign trade, and the protection to American labor afforded by the Dingley tariff.

In that tariff, however, there are certain duties that we must all admit are no longer needed. Nothing was said in the campaign here in regard to the iron schedule as a whole. I think you will find, however, that even the iron manufacturers themselves will admit that a duty on iron ore is no longer necessary, and that a reduction on such iron products as we are exporting so heavily could be made without injuring our domestic industry.

Here in Massachusetts the duty on hides is an anathema. It is known that only 23 per cent of the hides and skins that come into the United States are subject to duty, and it seems perfectly illogical that calfskins, sheepskins, and goatskins should come in free as a by-product not needing protection, while a duty is assessed on the skins of full-grown cattle.

I have the honor to inclose a canvass of New England on the subject of free hides. It will show you that the shoe manufacturers of this section are not clamoring merely for tariff revision, but they themselves are willing to submit to a reduction of the duties on boots and shoes if the last remnant of this needless duty can be removed from their material.

There can be no question of the desire of the overwhelming majority of the people of this State for attention to such matters as this in the immediate revision of the tariff. Nor can there be any question of their urgent desire that you should see your way clear to incorporate some suggestion of the kind, which, of course, I should not for a moment presume to dictate, in your message. I am sure you know, sir, the deep, loving affection of the people of this Commonwealth for you. They trust you, sir, more absolutely than any other man in public life. I am sure you will understand that I have not the slightest intention of forestalling any action of yours, nor is this letter being given to the press, though I have not the slightest objection to your quoting it or using it in any way you may desire. I do deem it, however, my duty, with the trust that has been placed in my hands, to inform you of the real condition of public feeling in this Commonwealth, as your every act shows that no Commonwealth is dearer to you than the Bay State, and that not even her own Representatives are more earnest than you in wishing her welfare. I have the honor to remain,

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Respectfully submitted,

CURTIS GUILD, Jr.

JOHN H. HANAN,

For American Shoe Manufacturers.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. JONES, OF BOSTON, MASS., REPRESENTING THE NEW ENGLAND SHOE AND LEATHER ASSOCIATION RELATIVE TO FREE HIDES.

SATURDAY, November 28, 1908. Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, before I take up the remarks that I had in mind to make, I want to correct one or two impressions that I think have been created by a lack of understanding by the previous witnesses, of some of the questions which have been asked them. I know Mr. Vogel so well, and have discussed this matter with him so many times, that I know that when he stated to you that he was in doubt about the result to the consumer of taking this tariff off on hides, that he meant this-he was doubtful about the course of the market on hides from natural causes. There is every indication now that hides will continue to advance, and in that case, the consumer might not get an immediate reduction in the price of his shoes if this duty were repealed; but Mr. Vogel, and every other

tanner, and every large manufacturer in this room, knows that the moment the duty is taken off hides, whether the course of the market at that time be up or down, the price of hides will immediately be at least 15 per cent less than it was before it was taken off.

Now, I wish to say, confirming one of the tanners who appeared here, and who stated that this tariff affected every consumer and every family in the land, and which statement was criticised by one of the members of the committee-I wish to repeat that statement, and I hope the gentlemen will ask me any questions they like about it, because that is the important point, so far as the shoe manufacturers are concerned. The shoe manufacturers as a class, as manufacturers and as merchants, can protect themselves against the evil effect of probably any tariff that may be levied. This tariff has introduced many annoying and embarrassing features into the business at times, but if we make the shoes at all, we are going to get at least a small profit; but the consumer is absolutely helpless. He has to pay in a greatly increased amount for every tax that is laid on our raw material.

The CHAIRMAN. What class of shoes do you manufacture?

Mr. JONES. We manufacture men's fine shoes, as they are called in the trade, retailing at from $3 to $5 per pair.

Mr. COCKRAN. If the duty were taken off hides, and you had free leather, would there be any necessity for continuing the duty on shoes?

Mr. JONES. At the present time, owing to the slight difference in the labor cost in this country and Europe, there would be some necessity. In 1897 the labor cost on our shoes was lower than it was abroad. It has changed since that time, having increased here and decreased abroad.

Mr. COCKRAN. How much duty would make up the difference in labor cost?

Mr. JONES. Ten per cent would be enough on our goods; 5 per cent perhaps.

Mr. COCKRAN. How much is the duty now?

Mr. JONES. It is 25 per cent.

Mr. COCKRAN. You think we can take off that duty?

Mr. JONES. In the amount stated; yes.

Mr. McCALL. Will you explain the matter of the duty on hides and the price of shoes?

Mr. JONES. I will do so with great pleasure, if I have the time. Mr. COCKRAN. Go on and do so.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the gentleman proceed in his own way. Mr. COCKRAN. He is a maker of shoes, and he knows the effects on the industry so far as it affects the prices of shoes and hides.

Mr. JONES. As you are probably aware, there are two classes of shoe material made from hides. They consist of upper leather and the sole leather. It is a necessity to have these two classes. I will take the matter of the upper leather first. This is such stock as is manufactured by Messrs. Vogel and Cobb, who have already appeared

here.

The ordinary weight of a hide used in the manufacture of upper leather is 49 to 50 pounds, and the price of this hide at the present time is from 12 to 13 cents. The normal range in prices is from 10 to 12 cents. To avoid unnecessary detail, we will take the cost of

this hide at an average price between 10 and 13 cents, and figured on that basis, we find that the 49-pound hide would make about 43 feet of leather, which will cost, in consequence of the duty, about 2 cents per foot more than if the hides were free. The ordinary workingman's shoe will require at least 3 feet of leather. There is what is known as a split taken off the leather, and in estimating this cost the figures have been taken from actual results, and the cost of the leather has been credited with the amount of split actually produced. In figuring in this way, which is the basis on which the tanner is obliged to make up his cost, we shall find the additional cost of the finished leather would be 2 cents a foot, as stated above, so that the workingman's shoe would be increased, on account of the upper leather, by about 2 cents per foot. With 3 feet of stock it would amount to 6 cents per pair.

Now, as to the sole leather used in such a pair of shoes, we find that this is increased in price in a variable quantity, according to the weight of the hide. The B. A. dry hide is the one from which sole leather of this class is usually made. An average weight of such a hide is 23 pounds. The average price of such a hide is 19 cents per pound. The duty on this' hide would amount to 65 cents per hide. As the hides are split in two down the back, making two sides to each hide, the average duty per side would be 323 cents. The average weight per side would be about 20 pounds, which would indicate that the average pound of sole leather would cost 1.6 cents more on account of the duty.

I have before me the speech of Mr. Henry T. Bannon, of Ohio, made in the House on May 22, 1906, and he figures the cost at 15 cents (page 8). His figures are slightly different from mine, but considering the varying weights of leather, our figures are pretty close, and he is approximately correct. As a matter of fact, taking the average leather used, the average difference in cost of the sole leather on account of the duty, is fully 14 cents per pound.

In the average pair of shoes worn by the workingman or farmer, including the necessary waste, it will take 2 pounds of leather for each pair manufactured. You can see, therefore, that the additional cost of the shoe, as relates to the sole leather, is approximately 4 cents per pair. Add to that the cost of the upper leather which we have found to be at least 6 cents, and the result would show an added cost at the factory, on account of the duty, of from 9 to 10 cents a pair. As a matter of fact, it varies from 8 to 12 or 13 cents a pair on that class of shoes. Mr. Bannon, reasoning from these premises, later on undertakes to show that such a small difference as is caused by the 15 cents per pair, would make no difference in the cost of the shoe at retail. As I have shown the actual difference to be 12 or 13 cents, his reasoning is obviously not correct. That difference not only affects the consumer but it affects him in a way and to a degree which you gentlemen, not being in the business, and not having these matters clearly in your mind, can not possibly conceive.

One member of the committee spoke of the Douglas shoe selling at $3. The Douglas shoe sells at $3.50.

Mr. BOUTELL. I meant to say $3.50, because I know that to be the selling price of the Douglas shoe.

Mr. JONES. The Douglas shoe is uniformly sold throughout the world at a fixed price of $3.50. If leather goes up on the shoe I have