Mr. DEERING. Yes, sir; so that the advantage gained by the English manufacturer on that machine would be about $4.50. Senator DAVIS. Does that difference of per cent run through all the kinds of agricultural machinery and implements, including the primitive kind of plow and hoe, etc.? Mr. DEERING. I think it does. Senator DAVIS. Everything in the line of agricultural implements that we make has just about that general difference? Mr. DEERING. I think that is the case. I will add this further statement, that the competition that the American manufacturer of harvesting machinery meets in France is almost entirely from Great Britain, which nation has the advantage of the minimum tariff. In spite of the advantage that the British manufacturers have, the American manufacturers are able to do so large a business with France that the putting into force of this treaty would result, to the harvesting manufacturers of this country alone, in a saving to their customers of $100,000 per annum. The manufacturers of agricultural implements whom we represent here estimate that their customers would save in duties on American agricultural implements about $127,000 per annum if the treaty were to go into effect. Senator DAVIS. What do you charge for a reaper? Mr. DEERING. The self-binder is $100. Senator DAVIS. In France? Mr. DEERING. In New York. Senator DAVIS. To the French jobber? Mr. DEERING. Yes, sir. Senator DAVIS. What do you charge the American jobber? Mr. DEERING. Last year, before the large advance in cost of materials, we charged them about $95. Senator DAVIS. I asked the question because it has been reported that you sell abroad for less than in this country. Is that so? Mr. DEERING. Oh, no; not at all. As I said before, I regret that I did not come prepared to make any extended statement out of my own memory of anything except the facts in my own business. The agricultural-implement manufacturers generally know, through investigation of the matter, that they make a quality of goods that would be entirely acceptable to the French people, if it were possible for them, with fewer disadvantages, to get into that market. It is true that the demands of French agriculture are somewhat different from those of American agriculture, and that the American manufacturers, in some lines, have not gone so far in adapting their manufactures to the foreign demand, and, incidentally, to the French demand, as they might have done, and will do with the proper opportunity. The American manufacturers of agricultural implements have been generally, until of late years, so fully occupied in their plants and with their capital in taking care of the home demand that there has not been, generally, that persistent effort to get the foreign trade that has been shown by some other manufacturers, notably those of harvesting machinery. But it is the feeling of the association we represent that we are on the eve, all of we manufacturers of agricultural implements, of pressing harder for the foreign trade. Our competition, in a general way, in Europe comes from the Brit ish and German manufacturers in the larger machinery, and it comes from England in the smaller articles-from Germany in both classes. Both of these nations have, in France, the advantage of the minimum tariff. From our investigation of this matter we are led to believe-I state this with an object that the advantages of the reciprocity treaty proposed are largely with America, and that those manufacturers who would be favored by the treaty would be much more benefited financially than those manufacturers of the country who would be injured financially. If it could be shown to us that this was not the case, we would very cheerfully withdraw our plea that the treaty be ratified. I do not know that there is anything more I can say at present without my papers, which I have left at my hotel, unless you have some questions to ask. Senator DAVIS. You are the president of what organization or association? Mr. DEERING. I am a member, in the first place, of the executive committee of the National Association of Agricultural Implements and Vehicle Manufacturers, and am chairman of the subcommittee of that executive committee on national legislation. Senator DAVIS. What is the amount of capital represented by that association? Mr. DEERING. About $400,000,000. Senator DAVIS. What is the annual output? Mr. DEERING. I think it is estimated at about $500,000,000. Senator DAVIS. Have you contracts dependent upon the favorable consideration of this treaty? You need not answer that question unless you wish to. Mr. DEERING. I shall be very happy to answer. Our agent to whom we sell, and who sells throughout France, is being asked by all his customers at the present time to guarantee them against loss by taking in the machinery at the present time, when they must take in in preparation for the coming harvest. Senator DAVIS. To guarantee against the difference between the maximum and minimum tariffs? Mr. DEERING. Yes, sir; and, as I understand, the McCormick Company is in the same position. Senator DAVIS. They can sell if they guarantee their customers against loss by the difference in tariffs! Mr. DEERING. Yes, sir; there is one other thing I would like to add. The last few years-five years-have shown a wonderful increase in the demand from Europe for American agricultural machinery, and especially perhaps for harvesting machinery. It is a fact that the increasing industrial prosperity in all of Europe, including Great Britain, has been causing the agricultural laborers to go to the centers of industry, with the result that in many countries of Europe, where formerly it was cheaper to harvest the crops by hand and to work the soil with primitive implements, it has now become a matter of necessity that the proprietors of the soil should have modern labor-saving machinery and implements. In the past four years, speaking without the figures before me, but as a branch of the agricultural-implement business, of which I know something, I should say the increase in the export of harvesting machinery has not been less in any year than 50 to 60 per cent of the previous year's business. Senator DAVIS. That is for all Europe? Mr. DEERING. Yes, sir. Senator DAVIS. That includes Lombardy and Hungary and Russia and all the centers of agricultural production? Mr. DEERING. Hungary has been one of the most backward countries in taking this machinery, but a year or two ago, perhaps two harvests ago, they had a very serious strike of agricultural laborers, and since then our business has grown very largely. Senator DAVIS. How is it in Russia? Mr. DEERING. Ever since I have known about it-I was there in 1885-it has been a country of very great promise unfulfilled. We were all believing that Russia was on the eve of becoming a large customer for American agricultural implements, and so indeed it is, but when the extent of territory is compared with the extent of the trade, it is very disappointing. Nevertheless, the Trans-Siberian Railroad is going to open a vast territory not at all unlike the Dakotas, adapted in every way for the raising of wheat, and the demand for American agricultural implements in that country can not fail to be large. The German market is about as large-somewhat larger, in fact, than the French market. Senator DAVIS. Can you tell me, with approximate accuracy, the total of exports of agricultural implements to Europe last year? Mr. DEERING. The total was $1,7 ,781,000. Senator DAVIS. How much the year before? Mr. DEERING. I can not tell. Senator DAVIS. To all Europe? Mr. DEERING. Oh, I beg pardon; no-to France alone. I can not tell what it was to all Europe; to all the world it was about $12,000,000. Senator DAVIS. Of that, what proportion would you suppose went to Europe? Mr. DEERING. About $7,500,000; I should say, roughly speaking, $8,000,000. Senator DAVIS. Is that all that occurs to you just now? Mr. DEERING. Yes, sir; if anything more should occur to me, have I permission to speak of it later? Senator DAVIS. Certainly. Mr. DEERING. In response to your kind permission, I wish to say we are present in Washington to represent some of these interests, not simply because each interest represented believes that it will be benefited by the ratification of the treaty, but also in order to learn what reasons are urged against the treaty; and it has been our purpose to say to you and the other Senators that if the balance of interests should clearly appear to be against the ratification of the treaty we should be well content to retire our own interests and acquiesce in the rejection of the treaty. We believe that the industrial legislation of the country, although sometimes halting and apparently inconsistent, has, on the whole, wisely and strongly protected and developed American manufactures. We believe that the true industrial policy of the country is often obscured by words which come to represent a faith to one and a heresy to another. We believe that for the words "protection," "free trade," and "tariff for revenue only," should be substituted the larger and broader term "the greatest good for the greatest number of American citizens." We believe that with this substitution the people of the country could be brought to unite on an industrial policy that will conquer the world. Toward this end, nature has done her part, American inventive skill has done its part, American capital has done its part, and above all American labor has also done its part, and we manufacturers believe that the country stands at the dawn of a new era as a manufacturing nation. The question that we ask ourselves now is whether or not Congress will continue to do its part. If we are to use the term protection, shall it not mean protection for the American manufacturer and the American laborer, whether we find them working to supply the American consumer or the European consumer? Shall it not mean protection abroad as well as at home? We believe that nature has intended this country to be the greatest exporter of manufactured products in the history of the world. All of the preliminary steps have been taken. We are ready to go forth to conquer the industrial world, and we believe that the path to the freedom and equality of American commerce in the markets of the world lies through reciprocity. We believe that it is the manifest destiny of this country, through one history of protection, through another history of reciprocity, to reach the largest measure in volume of foreign commerce that has ever been known in the history of industry. We manufacturers, upon whom the burden of carrying into execution this destiny has fallen and must fall, will not willingly turn our backs on the door that is opening to us. If our Congress should shut this door in our faces we can not believe that it will be able to find an apology for this action that will satisfy the country. As manufacturers, through our relations with the commercial world, we feel warranted in speaking to you and, we trust, through you to the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations, a word that perhaps we may be justified in calling a word of warning. We find that under the tariff prevailing from 1883 to 1890, known as the tariff commission law (by reason of the specific duties provided for, and the constantly decreasing price of manufactures), the average rate on dutiable articles increased from the average of 42 per cent in 1883 to the average of 47 per cent in 1887; and that in this time the average duty on all articles, including the free list, increased from 29.92 to 31.02 per cent. Under the tariff law, known as the McKinley law, the average rate of duty on dutiable articles increased from 46 per cent in 1891 to 50 per cent in 1894. Under the Wilson tariff the average rate of duty on dutiable articles, 41.75 per cent in 1895, increased to 42.41 per cent in 1897. We find that the average rate of duty under the present or Dingley law stood at 49.20 per cent in 1898, to 52.38 per cent in 1899; and that the average rate of duty on all articles imported, including those on the free list, increased from 24.77 per cent in the first year to 29.48 per cent in the next year. Can we believe that this ratio of increase is to continue in succeeding years? We are credibly informed that the framers of the Dingley tariff had distinctly in their minds the purpose of making a schedule which should permit the making of concessions to foreign nations without injury to American manufacturers. We believe that the present French treaty will reveal the fact that this purpose was wisely carried out. When we are informed that the average concessions in the tariff granted to France is 6.8 per cent and that the average of the concessions granted by France is 48 per cent we can not doubt the wisdom of the Administration in seeking to take advantage of the reciprocity provision of the Dingley law. We believe that a failure to ratify this treaty would be considered by the people to be a failure on the part of Congress to gather the fruits that our history and this tariff law has prepared for us. We find in the Republican platform of 1896 the following declaration: "That protection and reciprocity are twin measures of Republican policy and go hand in hand." We believe that this declaration was accepted by the country as made in good faith, and we believe that good faith on the part of the Republican majority in Congress demands a consistent adherence to this declaration. We have striven to know both before coming to Washington, and since our arrival here, what are the objections to the treaty? We have been informed that the knit goods manufacturers have been opposed to the ratification of the treaty. We are now informed that of the $100,000,000 worth of knit goods consumed in the country last year only $240,000 worth came from France. We have been informed that the manufacturers of pottery and silks were opposed to the ratification of the treaty. We are now told that both industries have admitted that no injury would be suffered by them. We have learned that the manufacturers of spectacles have believed that they would suffer injury, but they were shown that there would still remain to them 88 per cent of the present tariff; they have been satisfied to believe that no injury would come to them. We have been informed that the manufacturers of imitation jewelry object to the ratification of the treaty. We understand that the treaty proposed to reduce the duty from 60 to 57 per cent. We are further informed that the probabilities are that the result of the treaty will increase far more largely the exports of this class of manufactures from the United States to France than they import from France to the United States. We have heard that opposition to the ratification of the treaty has been based upon the proposed reduction in our tariff on prunes. We find that our exports of prunes to France amount to $260,000, while the imports of prunes from France to the United States amount to $14,000. We have understood that manufacturers of chemicals, gloves, and braids have stated that they will be injured by the ratification of the treaty. After an honest effort to learn the facts in the case, we are reduced to the conclusion that in actual working of this treaty the injuries suffered by them would be problematical in every case and imaginary in most cases. We have been therefore forced to conclude that in asking for the ratification of the treaty we are asking for something that does little or no injury to our fellow-manufacturers. Engaged, as many of us are at the present time, in a commerce that extends into many parts of the world, we are convinced that the whole world is at this moment standing amazed at what the American manufacturers have to offer them. The journals of the world, and especially the trade journals, are filled with proofs to-day of the supremacy of American methods and American machinery. It is safe to say that there is no intelligent manufacturer in the world to-day who is not seeking by every means in his power to learn more of the uses and advantages of American machine tools in turning out the best work at the lowest cost. American locomotives and American railway cars are rapidly being accepted by foreign nations. American agricultural implements imitated by foreigners are the standard of excellence throughout the world. American bridges, American pig iron, American steel, are admitted to be better than any others. |