Mr. MILES. We probably import a little. We make all for general purposes here that I know about. We make enormous quantities here now. Mr. CLARK. Are those all the trusts? Mr. MILES. I skipped a good many, but what I said of the few applies to every trust that I have been able to locate in the United States. Mr. CLARK. Have you a complete list of the trusts there—as far as you know? Mr. MILES. There are some small ones in the book that I did not reach, but I have all the large ones. Mr. CLARK. And you are going to put a list of the trusts in with your evidence? Mr. MILES. I will do so, if you wish it. Mr. CLARK. I wish you would. Mr. MILES. Thank you. Mr. CLARK. Have you a lumber trust in there? Mr. MILES. No, sir; there is not a lumber trust, technically. The CHAIRMAN. Where did you get your information about the number of trusts? From the Democratic campaign book? [Laughter.] Mr. CLARK. He is not a Democrat; he is a Republican. Mr. MILES. We imported $3,600,000 worth of cement in 1907 and produced $55,900,000 worth. Mr. GAINES. I thought there was a considerable importation. Mr. CRUMPACKER. Has the price of cement gone up in recent years! Mr. MILES. No, sir; I think it has gone down. Mr. CRUMPACKER. It is cheaper than it ever was before? Mr. MILES. I think so, sir. Mr. CRUMPACKER. I suppose that would be true. Mr. MILES. Yes, sir. Mr. DALZELL. According to this publication of ours it has not changed since 1899. Mr. CRUMPACKER. It has been much cheaper of recent years. Mr. RANDELL. Did you get any of your information about trusts from the Republican campaign book? Mr. MILES. I have never read either campaign book, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You would find some good sound doctrine about how to treat them there. Mr. Miles, I want to have a little conversation now about this petroleum Mr. COCKRAN. Have you completed your statement, Mr. Miles? Mr. MILES. No, sir; I have hardly commenced. The CHAIRMAN. The duty on petroleum was first put on by the Wilson bill, was it not? Mr. MILES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. A duty of 20 per cent? Mr. MILES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That was put on only as against those countries which imposed a duty on oil imported from the United States? Mr. MILES. It was a countervailing duty; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. A sort of a reciprocity clause, as it has been called. And the Dingley bill, on motion of the Senate, changed that duty to the imposition of a duty equal to that imposed by the foreign country against our country. For instance, whatever the Russian duty was on our oil going into their country, Russia paid the same duty on oil coming into ours; and so with Germany and with Switzerland, and all those other countries that produced more or less oil. Was not that the case? Mr. MILES. I suppose so, sir. The CHAIRMAN. The duty under the Wilson bill was 40 per cent, no matter what the duty was on oil going to a foreign country-40 per cent on oil coming here. Is not that true? Mr. MILES. I do not remember, sir. I do not know. The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is true according to the book. You will find it, if you consult it. It imposed 40 per cent wherever a foreign country imposed any duty, and the Dingley act imposed the same duty that the foreign country imposed against us. It started out with a duty of 3 cents in 1899, or 3 cents, perhaps, per gallon, and 1.14 cents in 1904; until finally all the countries that had been charging a duty against the American oils put it on the free list, except Russia. Russia maintained her duty, and in 1907 made it 18 and about three-quarters of a cent a gallon; and that is where you get the high rate of 98.63 per cent, or 100 per cent, as you say. Part of the time under the Dingley act it was a less percentage than it was under the Wilson bill. Such a duty as that has been imposed upon several articles with the idea of getting free entrance of our articles into the foreign countries, and it has operated in every instance except this; and it operated in this case on all countries except Russia; but Russia imposed a higher duty. Now, is not that a fair statement of the case? Mr. MILES. I accept your statement. The CHAIRMAN. What do you say? Mr. MILES. I accept any statement you make, of course. It is not for me to make a statement in explanation. I am simply expressing regret that it costs the people about $50,000,000 a year. The CHAIRMAN. I know; they made a football of it in the last campaign, as some iniquity in the Dingley bill, put there for a pur pose. Mr. MILES. Oh, it should not have been. The CHAIRMAN. When the object in putting it there was simply to allow the American oil to go to foreign countries. Mr. MILES. Surely; I think Mr. Rogers probably knew better than Congress about the chances on Russian oil when he got that or he would not have laughed. The CHAIRMAN. But we are considering the propriety, under the circumstances and with the result of that duty, about taking it off entirely hereafter. The Standard Oil trust grew up years before the Wilson bill, when oil was absolutely on the free list, did it not? Mr. MILES. Yes, sir: I suppose so. The CHAIRMAN. So that that great iniquity was not the result of the Dingley bill or of the Wilson bill or of any tariff by this country on oil? Mr. MILES. I am not talking about iniquities. I am talking about what the consumer is losing in money. The CHAIRMAN. You are talking about trusts and that the consumers are losing money because of this duty on oil. Whether they are or not is more than you or I know, I think, because the other countries, except Russia, have the free entrance of the markets of the United States on their oil without any duty. Mr. MILES. Well, I want to make the point as to the trusts that if you get a rate a particle too high a trust can take advantage of it and an independent manufacturer absolutely can not take advantage of it, so it simply throws him over to the trust. The CHAIRMAN. You would not have been able to make that argument when the Dingley bill was made, and cite any similar example. Whether you can now or not is another question. You could not do it then. You take steel rails. The steel trust was formed long after the Dingley bill was enacted, was it not? Mr. MILES. I do not know, sir. The steel trust, you say? The CHAIRMAN. The steel-rail trust-the United States Steel Company. Mr. MILES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. It was formed after the Dingley bill was enacted. Mr. MILES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And prior to that the duty had been reduced on steel rails in the various laws until we got down to the Wilson bill, had it not? Mr. MILES. I do not know about all that. The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is a fact. There was a small reduction from the McKinley bill to the Wilson bill, and the Dingley bill retained the same rate of duty on steel rails that there was under the Wilson bill; and under this tariff, down to 1899, as you say, there was open competition in the production of steel in the United States, and you did not complain of the prices. The price came down, did it not, from year to year? Mr. MILES. Under open competition. The CHAIRMAN. In open competition. And there was that condition down to the time of the formation of the United States Steel Company? Mr. MILES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And that was after the Dingley bill. Is not that true? Mr. MILES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That is all I care to ask you. Well, I would like to say this further. I want you to furnish this committee with information. You say in these various industries the labor is 15 per cent, 17 per cent, and 19 per cent, and all that sort of thing. What we want to get at is the cost of the labor, per unit of value, so that we can ourselves form an idea of the percentage of labor in order to fix these duties. Mr. MILES. You can get it The CHAIRMAN. If you, with your knowledge of the steel schedule, were going to make a tariff, and suit yourself, you would not take everything off of the steel schedule and put it all on the free list. would you? Mr. MILES. Taking the steel schedule as a general proposition The CHAIRMAN. I mean taking everything on the steel schedule. the manufacturers of steel, and carrying it clear through to cutlery, and all that sort of thing. Mr. MILES. I would take it all off on ore and all off on scrap, and let some mills in New England run, which can not run now, according to the last information I have, and take it substantially all off on pig, because it is made as cheaply here as anywhere. I am speaking of hot pig. And when I talk of that pig and the gentleman comes in and talks about cold pig Mr. UNDERWOOD. How are you going to take it off of hot pig? You can not bring it across the ocean in a converter. You could take it off of cold pig, if at all. Mr. MILES. You should not figure any duty on hot pig in a cumulative proposition, a cumulative tariff. Mr. UNDERWOOD. It is the cost of cold pig that we have to figure You can carry it from the blast furnace to the converter, but you can not cross the ocean with it. on. Mr. MILES. I do not think you should put a tariff on cold pig. That is something that should not be in the tariff. The CHAIRMAN. As I understand, on pig iron you still leave the duty, but you are not prepared to say now Mr. CLARK. He said he would take it off. Mr. MILES. Take it off of the whole schedule. The CHAIRMAN. On pig iron? Mr. MILES. Take it off of the whole steel schedule-15 to 20 per cent. The CHAIRMAN. Including cutlery? Mr. MILES. Oh, no; I mean steel products-the big rolling-mill stuff. The CHAIRMAN. Where do you draw the line? You said on all steel products. That is a pretty broad statement, and that includes cutlery. Mr. MILES. A maximum of 15 per cent or 20 per cent on all rollingmill products, and a minimum on the free list, or a little bit for revenue for the Government, provided the trusts will not hold up the domestic consumer as they are doing now, in restraint of trade; and I want to say that a good many, tens of thousands of manufacturers in this country, are wondering how they can get along because of the high prices; and they would have absolute relief as independent manufacturers if you would take that duty off, or in some way see that they could relieve themselves and run their shops on foreign steel in the face of this trust, which is a trust that is holding them up only because of the act of Congress in the tariff. The CHAIRMAN. You think, then, if you took the duty off, that a large number of manufacturers, as you say, would provide themselves with foreign steel and run their factories? Mr. MILES. No, sir The CHAIRMAN. You said let them run on foreign steel. What did you mean by that? Mr. MILES. I said give them recourse in that direction and the $46,000,000 that have gone abroad from our own producers will make the prices for our home consumers, and the law will help the small shop to buy its steel at home of the trust, instead of having the raw stock go to Europe to be made up by Europeans as against our small people, who have to buy at a Congress-made high price on steel. If you let us go abroad to buy our steel, we will go abroad and buy none or very little, because the home price is the foreign price plus the tariff, and if you take the tariff off the home people will take care of themselves--the home producers. The CHAIRMAN. I can not agree with you that the home price is the foreign price plus the tariff Mr. MILES. It is, according to the quotations I get here. The CHAIRMAN. You and I do not agree on that; but I am simply trying to get your idea of the steel schedule now. Now, we have the products of the rolling mill on the free list. Let us take a step farther. What would you do with the rest of it? Mr. MILES. I have a letter from a wire mill, the cry of a man in distress. He says you can write to as many independent wire mills as you choose, and they will all tell the same thing. He says: "The trust charges me so high a price for my raw material, and then through its own subsidiary companies makes finished wire at so low a price that I have no margin. I sent a representative abroad to get quotations on rods, and I just can not afford to buy them abroad; the tariff shuts me out, and nothing else, and if it were not for the tariff I could use the foreign-made steel and run my shops prosperously, as I used to." His letter says: "I used to think that character and diligence and skill made for profit, but it does not now, because of the tariff." The CHAIRMAN. On the strength of that letter, I suppose you would take the duty off wire? Mr. MILES. I would make a considerable reduction in the wire duty. The CHAIRMAN. You only say you would make a reduction? The CHAIRMAN. Corresponding with what? Mr. MILES. With the reduction you had made on the steel. The CHAIRMAN. That you have got on the free list. Mr. MILES. Then you would make a reduction on wire. I do not know how much it would be on wire. Mr. CLARK. Why not put it on the free list? Mr. MILES. Very likely; and when you come to nails, why not put them on the free list? The American nail maker controls 60 per cent of the free-trade English market. The CHAIRMAN. Now, you have nails on the free list. What about the next item? Mr. MILES. Machinery is higher grade stuff. The CHAIRMAN. Would you put it on the free list? Mr. MILES. No; but I have letters from a good many machine men who say yes, if you wish to. The CHAIRMAN. Would you put it on? Unless you produce the letters, they do not have any Mr. MILES. I would have to look into that matter. Some say yes-if the owners know about it, and they ought to-but some others say no. I am against the free list. Mr. CLARK. What are you against the free list for? Mr. MILES. I want the revenue for the Government, and I want a trading proposition. Mr. CLARK. You are looking out for the revenue, are you? Mr. MILES. I want a trading proposition. I have been up in Canada a good deal, and they build implements in Canada for the very |