Mr. WHITMAN. I have never been able to discover any other relation between 12 gold dollars and 12 gold dollars. Mr. COCKRAN. He said he bought that suit of clothes for $12, and it could not be bought for that price anywhere else in the world. Mr. WHITMAN. I can not testify as to that particular suit of clothes. Mr. COCKRAN. Do you believe that that duty on rags does make a better quality of goods in the United States? Do you not use your own shoddy in your own manufacture? Mr. WHITMAN. I do not use in my mills any shoddy or any waste of any kind. Mr. COCKRAN. The American shoddy is used in American factories, is it not? It can not be exported. Mr. WHITMAN. Yes; it is consumed in American factories. Mr. WHITMAN. To a limited extent. Mr. COCKRAN. And that was not entirely, then, the purpose of excluding foreign rags, was it? Mr. WHITMAN. I think if you will read over that paragraph Mr. COCKRAN. I say it was not entirely the purpose of fixing the duty to protect the quality of the goods, but rather to make a market for your own and to prevent the importation of foreign rags. Mr. WHITMAN. Both entered into it. Mr. HILL. There is one other point on which I would like to ask you a question. You condemn very bitterly the undervaluations under the German agreement, and you can not condemn them any more bitterly than I do; but is there any difference between a German manufacturer manufacturing an article for this market and shipping it here at a lower price than he sells it for at home, and an American manufacturer manufacturing goods in the United States and exporting them and putting a valuation on them at a lower price than he sells them for at home? Ought we not to be as fair to the foreigner as we are to our own people, and as fair to our own people as we are to the foreigner; just as fair to one as to the other? Mr. WHITMAN. I would like to qualify that answer a little. I do not think there is really any difference of opinion between us on that point. Mr. HILL. If you should find that illuminating oil was exported at a value of 5, 6, or 8 cents a gallon less than it is sold for, would you not condemn it just as naturally as you would condemn the German manufacturer for doing the same thing? Mr. WHITMAN. I am only a simple manufacturer and I can only take into my head one question at a time. Your first question was whether, in condemning the practice that I claim exists among German manufacturers under the same conditions, I would condemn, under the same conditions, a similar act on the part of an American manufacturer. I most certainly would. Mr. HILL. Then you would not overlook the beam in our own eye for the sake of seeing the mote that is in the other's eye? Mr. WHITMAN. I do not think any of us would be justified in doing that. Mr. FORDNEY. Were you manufacturing in the years 1903 and 1906 the same articles that you are producing to-day-about the same? 61318-TARIFF-No. 24-08- -13 Mr. WHITMAN. Somewhat similar. Mr. FORDNEY. How is that? Mr. WHITMAN. Similar. Mr. FORDNEY. Let me ask you, were the prices of your products sold on the market cheaper during those years for any given quantity than they are being sold to-day? Mr. WHITMAN. I think they were. Mr. FORDNEY. Did the people of this country who consume your productions get any greater quantity of those articles then than they do now? Mr. WHITMAN. No, sir. Mr. FORDNEY. Do they consume as much or more now than they did then per capita? Mr. WHITMAN. More. Mr. FORDNEY. What is the reason of that? Mr. WHITMAN. The prosperity of the country and the growth and development of the industry. Mr. FORDNEY. Due, in your opinion, to the protective tariff to a great extent on those articles? Mr. WHITNEY. Why, the whole industry of wool, as the woolen industry stands to-day, is founded upon the protective tariff that began during the war. Mr. FORDNEY. Are you more prosperous in your business to-day under the present protective tariff law than you were in 1906 ? Mr. WHITMAN. Yes, sir; I think so. Mr. FORDNEY. Then, that is your reason for not asking that the tariff be reduced or the duty reduced on your product, is it? Mr. WHITMAN. I think I have so stated. Mr. FORDNEY. I just wanted to understand you. Mr. WHITMAN. I do not want the duties reduced, because I fear that the first thing would be to try to reduce the wages. I do not believe we can reduce wages in our industry, because, as you know, during the last ten or fifteen years avenues never dreamed of have been opened for the employment of men and women-the telephone, the typewriter, the stenographer, the shop girl. There never was a time in the lives of any of us-and I do not know but that I am as old as any gentleman here-there never has been a time when there was so many avenues open for employment, and it makes it a little hard on our industry for this reason. They think it is a little more respectable to work in a shop than in a factory. Mr. CRUMPACKER. I would like to ask a question or two about a particular schedule-cheap blankets, for instance, valued at not more than 40 cents a pound. Last year there was imported 142 pounds only of the value of 40.60. They paid a duty of 67.16, equal to an ad valorem rate of 165.42 per cent. That duty is practically prohibitive, is it not-165 per cent? Mr. WHITMAN. On that particular character of blankets; yes, sir. Mr. CRUMPACKER. Upon that cheap blanket? Mr. WHITMAN. I do not know that. Mr. CRUMPACKER. Blankets valued at not more than 40 cents a pound; blankets that are used by the poorer classes of people in this country. That is a prohibitive duty, is it not? The records show that. Mr. WHITMAN. The records show that they could be bought so much cheaper here. Mr. CRUMPACKER. The American manufacturer of blankets does not need 165 per cent protection, does he, to control his own market? Mr. WHITMAN. That particular article? Mr. CRUMPACKER. That particular article; yes. Mr. WHITMAN. Well, I should think not. Mr. CRUMPACKER. Now, then, Mr. Whitman, in relation to cloths, woolens, and worsted goods which you manufacture, valued at not more than 40 cents a pound-that is a cheaper grade, is it not? Mr. WHITMAN. I am manufacturing dress goods, women and children's dress goods. Mr. CRUMPACKER. Cloths, woolens, and worsteds is the captionvalued at not more than 40 cents a pound; last year, 1907, the ad valorem rate was 134.97 per cent. Is that large duty necessary in order to protect you against foreign manufacturers in the production of the cheap class of worsteds? Mr. WHITMAN. Worsteds? Mr. CRUMPACKER. Yes, sir; 71,308 pounds valued at $23,963; duty, $37,378; 134.97 per cent? Mr. WHITMAN. I do not know where you find that. Mr. CRUMPACKER. I have the record that was prepared-I do not know where it came from. This is an official document, however. The CHAIRMAN. That was prepared for the use of the committee. Mr. CRUMPACKER. Yes, sir; from the official records. The CHAIRMAN. It is undoubtedly correct. Mr. CRUMPACKER. Valued at not more than 40 cents per pound-clothes, woolens, and worsteds. Mr. WHITMAN. What page is that? Mr. CRUMPACKER. Eight hundred and ninety-seven. This is dress goods, women's and children's coat linings, Italian cloths, and goods of similar description, valued at not exceeding 15 cents per square yard and not above 70 cents per pound-the rate last year, 1907, was 109 per cent. You are engaged in that line of manufacture, are you not-women's and children's dress goods? Mr. WHITMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. CRUMPACKER. I notice a number of schedules here where the rate is above 100 per cent. Do you believe that more than 100 per cent is necessary for the protection of any American manufacturer of woolen fabrics? Do you not believe that we could reduce it down to 100 or below 100 per cent with entire safety to our own industries? Mr. WHITMAN. In that schedule to which you refer the importations increased in 1898 from 3,319,000 square yards to 20,270,892 yards in 1905. Mr. CRUMPACKER. Let us adjust this. Now, taking them all together, this is a cheaper class. The scale is graduated according to value. Where the values are below 40 cents the rate is 134, and as the value increases the rate decreases naturally. Mr. WHITMAN. That is natural. Mr. CRUMPACKER. Of course; so that the higher class of woolen goods pay just about one-half the ad valorem rate of duty as the cheap class that are worn and used by the poor people of the country. Mr. WHITMAN. do not think that is so. Mr. CRUMPACKER. That is what the record shows-that the importation in the cheap class of goods is practically nothing. Mr. WHITMAN. You were asking me about dress goods. Mr. CRUMPACKER. I was asking you about dress goods worth below 40 cents a pound. Mr. WHITMAN. These are not dress goods. If you will refer to the dress-goods schedule you will find that you are looking at the wrong schedule. Mr. CRUMPACKER. I am looking at the schedule under the head of cloths, woolens, and worsteds worth less than 40 cents a pound. Mr. WHITMAN. You were asking me about dress goods. Mr. CRUMPACKER. About women and children. Mr. WHITMAN. Yes. Mr. CRUMPACKER. Yes; that is another schedule. These are the cheap ones. There has been an increase in importations and the rate has only one year been below 100 per cent. Mr. WHITMAN. Yes, sir. Now I desire to say that there is nothing more fallacious in making calculations than percentages. There is nothing that will make calculations more fallacious than per cent ages. Mr. CRUMPACKER. This rate is 11 cents per square yard and 55 per cent ad valorem. Mr. WHITMAN. Yes, sir. Now there were 37,000,000 square yards of these dress goods, weighing under 4 ounces here, and the entire product of the United States is about 200.000,000 square yards, constantly increasing. Mr. HILL. What would be the entire production and the importation? Mr. WHITMAN. The importation, 37,000 square yards of dress goods, weighing less than 4 ounces to the square yard, and according to the census of 1905 the quantity manufactured in this country was 200,000,000 of square yards. Mr. IIILL. That is, about one-sixth was imported. Now, Mr. Whitman, as a fair manufacturer, do you not believe that that could be easily accounted for without any reference to the duty on fashion and style in women's dress goods? Mr. WHITMAN. Part of it can; yes, sir. Mr. HILL. Then, why cite the importations as an excuse for a higher duty, or as an excuse for increasing the duty? Why not state it fairly? Now, I am just as good a protectionist as you are, but I would like to see the argument fairly presented. Mr. WHITMAN. Of course, in the first place, I am here as a witness, and it would not be proper for me I doubt if anybody could be fairer Mr. FORDNEY. I do not understand from the question and answer that Mr. Whitman is unfair. If you think so, I would like to hear it read. Mr. HILL. I do not mean it in the sense in which you would say unfair, but I mean, is it a just application of the argument? Mr. WHITMAN. I have made, in my judgment, a just claim here, and stated it, in my judgment, as fair as it is possible for a man to state it, and I value my testimony here as being truthful more than I can make out of any possible change in the law. Mr. HILL. I think your argument would apply entirely differently if it was one-sixth of the iron ore or one-sixth of copper, but in an article which is worn and used exclusively for fashion and fad it is not as good an argument, is it? Mr. WHITMAN. It is not governed exclusively by fashion and fad, and in your question there is one thing that you leave out of consideration, and that is the fact that the transportation problem plays the most important part in the iron manufacture, while in the textile manufacture it plays practically an insignificant part. Mr. CRUMPACKER. There is another suggestion that I desire to make. You have given the correct importation of this class of goods. What I want to call your attention to is that the high dress goods make up the value of the importations where it is a question of fancy and taste that enters largely into it. I notice that the cheap class of goods, those valued at not more than 40 cents per pound in this identical class of goods, there were practically no importations 470 pounds and the rate is 155.54 per cent in your own class in the cheaper line of goods? Mr. WHITMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. CRUMPACKER. While there is a large importation in the high dress goods? Mr. WHITMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. CRUMPACKER. Of course, that is on the side of fads or fancies of our people, but when you come to low-class goods, where no such element enters-goods that are worn by people who are not controlled so much by fashion-then the rate is 155 per cent, which is absolutely prohibitive? Mr. WHITMAN. No, sir. Mr. CRUMPACKER. That is the record here? Mr. WHITMAN. There is none imported, but it is not prohibitive. Mr. CRUMPACKER. There were 476 pounds? Mr. WHITMAN. I have stated half a dozen times. I think, during my examination that the reason those goods are not imported is because they are made and sold here cheaper than they can be imported. Mr. CRUMPACKER. You do not contend that 155 per cent Mr. WHITMAN. There is no 155 per cent. You have to take into consideration the compensatory duty on those goods. Mr. CRUMPACKER. The record shows 33 cents per pound and 50 per cent ad valorem, but the goods are valued at 31.3 cents a pound and yet the duty is 33 cents and 50 per cent ad valorem in addition to that. Mr. WHITMAN. The 50 per cent ad valorem is our duty. You must remember this The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Whitman, Mr. Hill was asking you a moment ago about the duty on rags; if under the Wilson bill rags were admitted free? Mr. WHITMAN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And there was an importation of 28,000,000 pounds in a year. Were those rags used in manufacturing shoddy, or what were they manufactured for? Mr. WHITMAN. I think they were used in the manufacture of shoddy. The CHAIRMAN. And it was alleged that at the time this bill was passed that if the high duty which would practically prohibit the |