Mr. THURMOND. Yes, I do; that is, I think it would be well that it be done. I do not think that it is absolutely essential to save the life of the cattle industry, perhaps, that it be done in this emergency bill. But let me tell you my position

Senator NUGENT (interposing). What is your view with respect to that matter concerning the sheep industry?

Mr. THURMOND. I think that the sheep industry is absolutely destroyed unless this measure is enacted and enacted quickly.

Senator NUGENT. Including a tariff on the importation of frozen carcasses of lamb and mutton?

Mr. THURMOND. Yes, sir. My position upon frozen meats is just exactly this: There ought to be sufficient tariff on frozen meats to equalize the cost of the production of those meats in the countries that send them here with the production of the meats in this country.

Senator NUGENT. I presume that you are aware of the fact that conditions are changing so rapidly throughout the world that it is to all intents and purposes impossible to ascertain that difference?

Mr. THURMOND. Yes, sir. But we could ascertain, it seems to me, practically what it would be. At any rate, the tariff should be put high enough so that we would be certain, and then the tariff should not be a fixed thing, and if it became necessary to change a schedule in order to meet changed conditions it ought to be done.

In other words, the producers of this country ought to be protected in the production of what they are producing.

Speaking of the interest of the consumer-has it ever occurred to you gentlemen that until a thing is produced there is nothing to consume, and if you kill the production of a food article in this country then there is nothing for the consumption of the consumer to consume; and whenever you destroy an industry of this kind in this country, and you must get your production from a foreign country, it will not be long until the consumer of this country will realize that his interests have been scarificed in an effort to preserve him against what seems to be the idea that the producer must be crushed in order to save a consumer.

Besides, in so far as wool is concerned, the price of wool will never affect the price of the finished suit of clothes made of the wool that the consumer buys, because you can take our best Texas wools to-day at the price that they were during the war and a suit of clothes that would retail for $100 would contain not over $6.70 worth of wool. What makes the suit cost is the value of the labor that goes into the suit and the dyestuffs that enter into its making.

Senator THOMAS. Then there is no reason for a compensatory duty to the manufacturer?

Mr. THURMOND. Oh, yes, there is.

Senator THOMAS. I would like to ask you a question on that. Mr. THURMOND. Because the cloth made in England and foreign countries would be brought over here in competition with our cloth, and we want a compensatory duty in order that the cloth man could not come in competition with it on the same basis, unless it is upon the same basis of pay to the laborer in that country that our laborer gets in this country, and if you want to reduce the laborer in this country to the level of the laborer over there, then your argument would be good.

Senator THOMAS. That presupposes there is no tariff in countries like Germany and France. They have a higher tariff really than we have, but there is quite a difference in labor just the same.

Mr. THURMOND. That is true. There is quite a difference in labor in Germany and there is quite a difference in labor in England also. Senator THOMAS. Where there is no tariff.

Senator NUGENT. I agree with you on the proposition of the cost of wool entering into a suit of clothes is, comparatively speaking, a negligible quantity.

Mr. THURMOND. Yes, sir.

Senator NUGENT. I call your attention, however, to the fact that you are in error that the dyestuffs with which a suit is dyed cuts any material figure in the matter, because the value of the dye entering into the dyeing of cloth in an ordinary suit is only 32 cents.

Mr. THURMOND. Perhaps I am mistaken with reference to dyestuffs. The labor, as I stated, is the big item in the cost of a suit of clothes.

Senator NUGENT. And the profits of the manufacturer.

Mr. THURMOND. And, certainly, the profits the manufacturer is entitled to a legitimate profit and the retailer is entitled to a legitimate profit, but I am talking about the cost of production.

Speaking of the effect upon the industry of this legislation, at the present time we have absolutely no market. This measure would stabilize the market of the country. It would beget confidence in the banking institutions of the country and the credit of these people so that they could go on and do business. It would let the manufacturer know that the bottom had been reached, that there was a stable price upon this commodity, and he would go into the market and buy and could go in and buy intelligently. It would let the retailer know what he could pay for the manufactured article. In other words, it would beget a condition of confidence, and a stable condition of business would on, and instead of having thousands upon thousands of men locked out of our manufactories as they are to-day, those men would go back to work and the consuming power of this country would be rehabilitated, the purchasing power of this country would be rehabilitated, and in that way we would help your cotton, we would help everything. Business would begin to move

Now, if we can bring about that and thereby save these flocks and the production of wool, can it be said that because of any kind of political ideas, our ideas of political economy, that that ought not to be done?

The bankers throughout all of the sheep-raising section of this country are united upon the proposition that this bill will bring about this effect. The wool commission men throughout this country are united upon the proposition that this bill will do that. Telegram after telegram has come here from men who have been engaged in the sheep business of my State for a lifetime, men who have reached the age of 80 years, in large banking institutions; and they all say that the only salvation for the business, for the industry, is the passage of a measure such as this.

Treating this bill from a revenue standpoint, what is the situa tion? I dare say to this committee that this bill, if enacted into law, will save to this Government at least $50,000,000 of revenue, and I say that for this reason: There is a great accumulation of wool

ready to be dumped into this country. The mere introduction of this bill and its passage through the House has caused that wool to hesitate in coming in here under a duty-free tariff law. If this bill is killed, or even by indication they are led to believe that it will be killed, that wool will be dumped in here free.

We all know that a tariff bill is going to be enacted soon.

But

if this session is allowed to go by with this bill dead, that wool will be rushed in here under our present free wool tariff law, and this Government will lose at least in my humble judgment-$50,000,000 of revenue that it would collect under the bill that the incoming Congress will undoubtedly enact into law.

Senator SIMMONS. Will the wool come in if you put these duties on it?

Mr. THURMOND. Yes, sir-you mean these duties in this bill?
Senator SIMMONS. Yes.

Mr. THURMOND. I do not know that the duties in the bill of the incoming Congress will be as high as the duties in this bill.

Senator SIMMONS. If this bill is passed, if it does not stop the importations of wool then it will do you no good; if this bill is passed and the wool does not come in because of the revenues, then we will not get the revenues.

Mr. THURMOND. You do not catch me. If this wool does come in free of duty, certainly you will lose the revenue that you would get under the bill that will be passed, will you not?

Senator SIMMONS. Of course.

Mr. THURMOND. And it would amount to a loss of those duties, because the wool will already have been piled up here in anticipation of this.

Senator SIMMONS. You said if this bill was passed you would get the relief and the wool would not come in. In that event we would not get the revenue.

Mr. THURMOND. There are certain wools that would come into this country under the provisions of this bill and would pay those duties.

Senator SIMMONS. There are wools we do not produce in this country?

Mr. THURMOND. Yes, sir; there are wools we do not produce in this country-certainly there are carpet wools, and we do not produce them, as I understand, in this country.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Let me just ask this question?

Mr. THURMOND. Yes, sir.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Would it then afford any relief to the wool industry to put a duty on those wools that we do not produce here? Mr. THURMOND. No, sir.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Then, why not let them come in free?
Mr. THURMOND. They are excepted from the bill.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I understood you to say that there were certain wools that under this bill would pay a duty, and that we would collect a certain amount of revenue from the admission of those wools into this country under this bill?

Mr. THURMOND. Some wool would come in.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. But those wools that will come in, notwithstanding the duty, compete with wools produced in this country.

Mr. THURMOND. I can not say whether they do or not. I do not think they do with the wools from my country, sir.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I understood that there were wools that would come in that would not compete, wools used in making coat linings and carpet wools, and I was just wondering whether if those wools do not compete with the wools produced in this country and are named in the bill and would have to pay a revenue, why it was advisable to put them in here with the high duty on them, when the sheep industry will get no benefit from the collection of that duty?

Mr. HAGENBARTH. They are not in the bill, Mr. La Follette, though there are some wools in the bill. It is very difficult to differentiate on that. But, to go back a little, of course, in this emergency bill we are not considering the tariff. This has sort of drifted on to a tariff discussion.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Yes.

Mr. HAGENBARTH. Of course, where in the past in Ohio, western Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, they formerly produced 70/80's, which they produced in great abundance at one time, they can be brought back with a proper tariff.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Then, I can see some reason for including them.

Mr. THURMOND. Considering this matter as to frozen beef or frozen mutton

Senator MCLEAN (interposing). Where do those wools come from that compete with your wools?

Mr. THURMOND. Australia and South America.

Senator MCLEAN. What is the difference in the cost of producing wool in Australia and in Texas?

Mr. THURMOND. Well, sir, I have tried to find the cost of production in Australia since coming to Washington, and I inquired at the tariff commission for it, but I can not get definitely any information there relative to the cost of production in Australia. There is one item of cost of production in Australia that I have some authority upon-I do not know how reliable it is-but I understand that they are furnished forage in Australia at 8 cents per head per year, and it costs us a great deal more than that.

Senator THOMAS. Is that pasturage?

Mr. THURMOND. Yes, sir; that is pasturage; and in South America at 48 cents per head a year, and, of course, it costs us a great deal more than that for pasturage for forage for our flocks in my section of the country and, in fact, in any section of this country.

Senator MCLAN. Can they export their wool to this country at a profit?

Mr. THURMOND. Yes, sir; they are exporting to-day. You can buy the finest wools that come in competition with our Texas wools at, I think, 20 cents.

Senator MCLEAN. You do not know what profit that returns to the Australian grower?

Mr. THURMOND. No, sir; because I do not know what the cost of production of the wool is in Australia. But I understand that the Australian is taking some of his wools and withdrawing some of his wools from sale.

Congressman HUDSPETH. Mr. Waddell says in his statement that it costs 4 cents a pound to produce wool in Australia.

Senator MCLEAN. How much does it cost you to produce it in Texas?

Mr. THURMOND. Under present conditions it would cost us 50 cents a pound, practically, in Texas. It costs less than that under normal conditions.

Senator McLEAN. That is under normal conditions?

Mr. THURMOND. No, sir; I said under present conditions.

Senator MCLEAN. What would it cost you to produce under normal conditions?

Mr. THURMOND. Under normal conditions I think we can produce wool in Texas for about 30 cents a pound.

Senator MCLEAN. This same grade of wool which comes from Argentina and South America?

Mr. THURMOND. Some of it comes from South America.

Senator MCLEAN. What does it cost there?

Mr. THURMOND. I do not know, sir. I have not the figures as to what it costs to produce it.

Senator MCCUMBER. You produced a number of years prior to the war for less than 30 cents a pound, did you not? On an averagetake the 10 years prior to the war, say, 1903 to 1913.

Mr. THURMOND. I understand from gentlemen who are in the wool business that they sold their wools in 1912 for 30 cents a pound, and the cost of production then-the wool in our country was just aboutwas just about expected to pay the expense of running the sheep, and the profit we had out of the sheep, if any at all, was the lamb produced by the sheep. We could possibly produce wool under those conditions; that is, the conditions existing from the time you state

1903 to 1913.

Senator MCCUMBER. That is, 10 years prior to the war?

Mr. THURMOND. About 25 or 30 cents a pound.

Senator MCLEAN. What is the difference in cost of delivering the Australian wool to our markets and the delivery of your wool to our markets?

Mr. THURMOND. It costs us about twice as much, as I understand it. Freight rates you refer to?

Senator MCLEAN. Yes.

Mr. THURMOND. It costs about twice as much, although the Australian has 500 miles more of railway haul than we do.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. In maintaining the flock, how do you calculate the productivity of the wool and the mutton?

Mr. THURMOND. We do it in this way: For instance, if we are figuring each she stuff, stock sheep-

Senator LA FOLLETTE (interposing). I mean, taking your entire flock.

Mr. THURMOND. We figure the cost, first, of the land to run the sheep, and the interest upon the land investment. We figure the cost of the labor, we figure the cost of the feed-that is, of the necessary foods we must buy, such as salt and other feed and furnishing water; and then we credit the ewe with the average lamb crop; and we in our State get, I would say, 60 per cent of lambs as a fair estimate of the production in lambs.

Then the market for those lambs would depend entirely upon the wool market, because the wool market fixes the market for sheep, of

course.

The lambs might be worth $3 with wool at reasonably fair