Of course if we concede the right of our Government to place a tariff wall around its industries, we must make the same concession to foreign governments to protect their industries.

Of the difficulties besetting the progress of the American shoe in the foreign market I will simply give you an illustration of an experience in France. The domestic shoe production of France represents a total value of about $140,000,000. The importation shows a total value nominally of $1,410,000 (1906). The shoe importations from all countries to France amount to 1 per cent of the home production. Of the importation in France, the American shoe represents one-seventh of 1 per cent, while the English shoe represents about four-sevenths of 1 per cent. In other words, the total export to France from the United States in the matter of shoes amounts to about one-seventh of 1 per cent of the total shoe product of France. The American shoe has such a reputation abroad, although its high price limits its sale only to better classes, that it is a startling factor, a sort of a bogie, to the foreign shoe manufacturer. While the English manufacturer exports four times the amount exported by the American shoe manufacturer into France, the English shoe is admitted under a minimum rate, while the American shoe is handicapped by a maximum tariff rate, with all signs pointing to a greater increase in the near future. I have called attention to this fact simply for the purpose of evidencing the disadvantages working against the progress of the American shoe product in the foreign market. There is no question but that our industry requires some relief if its market is to be extended. Some relief will be had if the tariff on hides is removed, in so far, as we believe, that to that extent we will lessen the original cost to meet the burden of the foreign import tax upon the American shoe. We have seen that the Government profits little by its duty on hides. We believe there is no industry that is benefited by its maintenance. We have observed that the burden of the tariff on hides falls heavily upon the wage-earning and agricultural classes. Remove that tariff, give us free hides, and the American shoe will be improved in quality or lowered in price to the American consumer, placed within the reach of a larger body of consumers abroad, and a great benefit will be bestowed upon a very much larger percentage of the population of this country by a substantial addition to our annual wage distribution.

In presenting for the consideration of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives the views of the Boot and Shoe Manufacturers of the United States relative to the tariff on hides, it will not, at this time, be either inopportune nor less pertinent to present the views upon this subject which were offered under the auspices of our association by its representatives and representatives of the New England Shoe and Leather Association and of the New York Hide and Leather Association to President Roosevelt, November 15, 1905, with a view to securing a recommendation of the President to Congress upon the subject in his annual message.

On that occasion Gov. William L. Douglas, of Massachusetts, said: We appear before you as representatives of the National Boot and Shoe Manufacturers' Association and kindred trades. We speak for a manufacturing industry which, by our last census, ranked ninth in importance as to number of wage-earners and wages paid, and eleventh as to the value of gross products.

This great industry, producing an absolute essential to civilized life, is greatly oppressed and burdened by what we believe to be a needless tariff duty on hides. We are firmly convinced that this duty not only handicaps our industry and prevents its proper growth and expansion, both domestic and foreign, but that it is an evil to the country as a whole. Without, as we believe, serving any good purpose, this tariff duty heavily taxes articles essential for the health and comfort of every man, woman, and child in this land, and thus greatly increases the cost of living. This tax bears most heavily upon laboring people who spend almost as much for shoes, per capita, as do our professional people.

Moreover, the cost of the leather in the cheap, heavy shoes worn by the great mass of the people is proportionately greater than it is in the expensive and highly finished shoes.

Thus, while we are pleading for the consideration of the interests of those engaged in manufacturing and repairing boots and shoes, and all others engaged in manufacturing harness, bags, belts, etc., we are also pleading for the consideration of the welfare of 80,000,000 people who wear shoes.

About 240,000,000 pairs of shoes are made annually in this country. The difference in the prices of sole leather between this country and Canada, where there is no duty on hides, varies from 3 to 5 cents per pound, which equals from about 4 to 7 cents per pair on the average factory cost of our shoes. And in this connection, Mr. President, I wish to make quite clear to you that while 7 cents additional cost on a pair of shoes may seem an unimportant matter to the ordinary person, that amount represents more than the profit made by the average manufacturer. So you can understand that we are pleading for the very existence of our industry.

Previous to 1842 hides and skins were admitted free of duty. From 1842 to 1872 they were dutiable at from 4 to 10 per cent. From 1872 to 1897 they were free of duty. In 1897, after twenty-five years of free hides, a duty of 15 per cent was put on cattle hides, other hides and skins being left on the free list. This 15 per cent duty, 50 per cent higher even than the war duty levied from 1861 to 1872, was put on despite the protest of the boot and shoe manufacturers.

In July, 1897, hides were but 9 cents per pound. After this date they began to increase rapidly, and have continued to advance until on November 1, 1905, the price was 15 cents per pound. There is good reason for believing that the 15 per cent duty on hides is of no particular benefit either to large or small cattle raisers, and we understand that the hide duty was levied primarily for the benefit of the cattle raiser. In this country cattle are raised and slaughtered principally for beef. Hides are an incidental product of the butchering business. It is absurd to suppose that putting a tariff on the by-products of the beef industry will materially change the prices paid for cattle. These fluctuate or would fluctuate if there were no combinations to interfere with economic laws, in accordance with the supply of and demand for cattle for beef purposes.

That there is little or no connection between the prices of steers and of their hides is shown clearly by statistics for the last ten years, which are herewith appended. Thus, while the prices of hides are now 15 cents per pound, and were but 9 cents in July, 1897, the prices of steers have averaged, except for the year 1902, but little (perhaps 15 per cent) higher than before. The exceptionally high prices of 1902 were due to the very small crop of corn of 1901. During the last three years the prices of cattle have declined materially, while the prices of hides have risen. Thus, while prices of cattle are now lower than in October, 1904, prices of hides are now more than 40 per cent higher than then. We may, then, be reasonably certain that the duty of 15 per cent on hides does not protect or benefit the cattle raisers. It does, however, compel all farmers to pay higher prices for boots, shoes, harness, saddles, and other leather goods. It is essential that we import large quantities of foreign hides. Our imports for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1905, were valued at $14,949,628. We do not produce enough to make our own boots and shoes. About 25 per cent of all leather made in this country is made from imported hides and skins. Could these come in free of duty, and should leather decline here to the level of foreign markets, we could not only make cheaper shoes for ourselves, but we could increase our export business many fold. For, strange to say, we now export more than $8,000,000 worth of shoes a year, handicapped as we are by what we contend is an onerous, unnecessary, and unjust duty.

That there may be no doubt as to the effect on taxed hides upon the price of leather, I have here a letter from the Anglo-Canadian Leather Company (Lim

ited), large tanners and dealers in hides and leather. It is dated November 11, 1905. It quotes the price of Central American hides leather at 21 cents, seconds at 19 cents per pound; discount for cash, 5 per cent. The prices for these and for corresponding leathers in Boston on the same day were for heavy and middle weights from 23 cents to 24 cents, and for seconds 21 cents per pound. This difference of from 2 to 3 cents per pound is explained by the duty of 15 per cent on hides. As 100 pounds of green hides makes but 70 pounds of finished sole leather, the duty of 15 per cent on green hides at 14 cents per pound makes a difference of 3 cents per pound on the leather. This is an actual difference in prices of leather in American and Canadian markets.

The duty on hides permits a charge of 15 per cent more for hides here than in foreign markets.

Hides are simply and solely a by-product. Cattle are slaughtered for beef, and their prices are fixed, not according to the prices of hides, but almost exclusively for beef purposes.

In the boot and shoe industry we pay the highest wages paid on earth; but we have the cheapest labor, when efficiency and product are considered. Neither we manufacturers nor our employees are protected to any considerable extent by the duty of 25 per cent on boots and shoes. We will consent to a reasonable reduction of this willingly in order to obtain free hides and cheaper leather. All we ask is a free field and no favor, either in our own or in foreign markets. Take away the duties that prevent us from obtaining leather at the same prices paid by our foreign competitors and we will not only hold our own markets, with or without a duty on shoes, but we will invade foreign markets at good wages to our boot and shoe workers.

While the duty on hides bears heavily upon our industry in every part of the country, it bears most heavily upon the New England end of it. Now that Germany, Canada, and Mexico are discriminating against our shoes, and are levying or threatening to levy much higher duties upon them, it will be even more difficult for us to hold our share of this industry, handicapped as we are. With free hides and with access to foreign markets we would be in no danger. Not only could we manufacture shoes more cheaply for our people, but we would greatly increase our exports to foreign countries.

The margin of profit for most manufacturers of shoes is only 4 or 5 cents per pair. Of course these manufacturers have either had to advance the price of shoes or to use cheaper materials. As yet, however, advances have been but slight in comparison with the increased cost of materials. Unless the cost of materials can be reduced shoes must soon sell at higher prices.

We see no prospect for cheaper materials and no hope for cheaper shoes for the people except through the removal of the tariff duty on shoes. On behalf of the manufacturers, makers, and wearers of shoes we ask you to consider most earnestly the facts which we present. We hope that you will agree with us and that you will recommend that Congress remove this burdensome duty.

Comparisons of cattle, hide, and leather prices-Continued.

The above prices of cattle are taken from monthly summaries of United States Department of Commerce and Labor, and are taken for the specific dates mentioned. The prices of leather and hides are taken from a table of "Comparative prices of leather and hides for ten years," published in the Shoe and Leather Reporter of August 10, 1905, and later numbers.

Mr. Jackson Johnson, of Johnson, Roberts & Rand Shoe Company, of St. Louis, Mo., spoke as follows:

A “tariff on hides" is a purely economic proposition. It is inconsistent with the principles of protection. Conceding all that may be said in favor of a protective tariff, we all realize that it should not be imposed indiscriminately, but that the article or subject of the duty must be considered.

The basic principle of the protective tariff is to foster and promote domestic enterprises and industries by placing a premium upon such foreign goods as may be substituted for our own. The production of hides is not an industry, nor is there a substitute for them. Cattle raising is an industry to-day, but not for the production of hides. It is a profitable industry for producing beef. The production of hides is only an incident to it, and it is fair to say that if hides were the only product of cattle raising, that industry would not flourish as it does to-day. It must be apparent then that the imposition of a duty upon foreign hides can not of itself stimulate the production of domestic hides. Of course there is no substitute for hides. They are imported to-day, and would be imported if they were on the free list, not for the purpose of supplanting domestic hides, but because the supply of domestic hides is insufficient. The importation of hides is a necessity, as the making of heavy shoes is a necessity, and for other purposes. It is not the case of substituting a foreign

for a domestic article. It is simply filling out the domestic market in an article which is not produced independently, but only a by-product of a great industry, and the production of which, in its very nature, can not be fostered or protected by this or any other tariff.

It has been demonstrated that the price of beef cattle is not influenced by the price of hides, as within the past three years we have seen a decline of 25 per cent in the price of cattle and an advance of 33 per cent in the price of hides. In this same period of time, sheep (the skins of which are not dutiable) have advanced in price, hence we must assume that the duty on hides does not benefit the cattle raiser.

Now, what is the effect of this duty upon trade conditions? It is a wellknown fact that the very existence of a tariff tends to furnish a screen behind which those who control a given product may manipulate the market. In the case of hides and leather, the tariff has resulted in market fluctuations which are artificial and unrelated to the laws of supply and demand, because the production of hides, as I have already stated, has no relation to the tariff upon hides. It is a singular fact that the greatest producer of hides is also the greatest consumer of leather. The farmer produces the hides and at the same time leads all other classes in consuming all the articles into which hides are converted.

If we assume that the tariff advances the price of his cattle, he is still not benefited, for the increased price which he pays for his shoes, harness, etc., far exceeds the imaginary advanced price received for his cattle. The farmer receives the increase in price only once, whereas each intermediate dealer, simply because the duty exists, adds somewhat to the price of the article handled, so that when the finished product has reached the consumer the increase in price far exceeds the increase received for the raw product.

The manufacturer's profit upon staple shoes, such as are worn by farmers and wage-earners, is about 5 per cent, and it is confidently asserted that the tariff rate is not simply shifted to the farmer, but that in the process of shifting the rate is greatly increased.

The manufacturer of all kinds of heavy leather goods is the chief sufferer. Under our present tariff 30 per cent of the duty upon imported hides is returned in the way of drawbacks.

It is possible and a common practice for a foreign manufacturer to bring his hides to this country, have them tanned here, collect his drawbacks, and return the leather to his own foreign country for less than our own manufacturer can buy the same leather here. The result is that the foreign manufacturer of shoes and leather goods takes advantage of certain of our industrial facilities to prepare his hides for his factory and then deprives us of a market for the finished product in shoes, harness, etc., which should be ours.

In other words, the tariff upon hides not only places a heavy and unjust burden upon our consumers without an adequate return, but it restricts the market for our goods, retards the introduction of our finished products in shoes and heavy leather goods into foreign markets, and so far discourages the skilled workmen in these trades.

If hides were on the free list, the cost of heavy shoes worn by farmers and wage-earners would be greatly decreased and our exportation of such products would be greatly increased. With our great resources for tanning and finishing hides we could place our products into the new markets cheaper than any other country in the world.

If this tariff were abolished it would not be possible for foreign hides to be furnished here only to be returned and manufactured into shoes, harness, etc., in foreign factories.

If there were no duty on hides, this same product could be finished in our own factories, our skilled workmen would have a greater opportunity, and the product could be placed upon the foreign markets. As it is, the tariff upon hides furnishes only a small revenue and no protection, while it has become a positive advantage to the foreign manufacturer to the detriment of the domestic producer, manufacturer, workman, and consumer.

The situation is a serious one, affecting possibly a greater per cent of our people than any other question of recent years, and it demands some action proportionate to its importance. Excepting an increase in the price of foodstuffs, there is no question more vital to the people generally than the cost of shoes and other products of hides. Whatever may have been the causes which called for the imposition of this duty, conditions to-day do not justify its continuance, and it is earnestly hoped that some action will be taken to secure immediate relief from its unfortunate consequences.