American goat to get ahead of them, and we have made a progress during the time we have been handling the angora goat, and we wish to stay in the business, and there is only one thing that can defeat. and keep us from forging to the front, and that would be to put a duty so low that we can not raise it at a profit.

Senator McCUMBER (presiding). It is not really necessary to import the Turkish and South African goats, is it?

Mr. TAYLOR. It is not. But we are American people and like to go forward. We would like to have some new blood. We have had to infuse so much American blood in flocks that we thought it would be very acceptable if we could get some fresh blood from that country. However, we have got our mohair up to a state of perfection where it is now equal to the Turkish and South African products. Senator McCUMBER. You import now about one-half of the mohair that is used?

Mr. TAYLOR. The importations are about equal to one and a half times the native American production.

Senator MCCUMBER. I have the statistics for 1919, and they would indicate about the same, according to the Tariff Commission's report. They say that in 1919 our output was about 6,000,000 pounds, and I notice in 1919 the importations were 6,123,123 pounds, so they were very nearly the same that year. And it has been increasing since 1919, has it? I refer, of course, to the importations. This is the last that we have.

Mr. TAYLOR. I got my information which I have here about the importations of that 9,000,000 and that 8,000,000 from the Summary of Tariff Information for 1920, paragraph 304, page 75; that is where I got the information which I have just given you.

Senator MCCUMBER. I think you will find that this includes alpaca as well as mohair.

Mr. TAYLOR. Possibly it does; I will not say about that. But addressing my remarks to what you say about your statistics showing that the importations would equal our native production, I think that only a few years back that it did not.

I now wish to call the committee's attention to the discrimination made by the Governments of the mohair-raising countries of the eastern world against that of the United States industry, namely, by the Governments of Turkey and South Africa. Turkey and then South Africa put, first, an almost prohibitory duty on exports of male or female Angora goats, and finding that even with a tax of $500 per animal some were even then exported from these countries for breeding purposes, they thereupon issued a proclamation to the effect that no Angora goats should be exported from these countries. In Turkey a violation of the decress of law is punished by death. We do not ask that our Government retaliate against these foreign Governments for this discrimination against us, but we do ask why should our Government, in view of this discrimination, propose a duty so low as to destroy our industry and at the same time give it over to the Governments of Turkey and South Africa? If they could once more get the mohair industry back into their possession they certainly would hold on to it. Once we are driven out of this industry, it would give those Governments which have discriminated against us by such unreasonable prohibitory decrees on the importation of breeding animals an entire monopoly on the industry and

the growers in these foreign countries would have accomplished the results which they desired and which they aimed at when they issued these prohibitory decrees, namely, driving out all competition and obtaining possession of the entire mohair markets. Results which are natural of people of that class that they would put the market up and we would pay the price and at the same time receive no bene fits. The industry is becoming more highly competitive yearly, as imports now exceed the native production by about one and one-half

times.

Gentlemen, if I have erred in giving these facts and figures my aim is to try to be reasonable, and try to get the facts out of this thing, because I would rather lose the cause I represent than to make false statements about it; and if I have erred in this it has been from the head and not from the heat.

In past years the mohair market was controlled by fads and fancy. but mohair has now become a stabilized product and is looked upon when the season arrives for it the same as wool is when the season arrives for woolen goods, therefore, it has taken its place in the commercial world as a commercial product and it no longer moves by fad and fancy. When springtime arrives all classes, men, women, and children begin to look for the summer wear of mohair. and it is only a short time when it is going to replace practically everything else in the way of summer wear, because it is the coolesi. most sanitary article that is put upon the market.

Furthermore, we sell all our mohair to weavers and spinners in the United States, and I wish to emphasize just here that I wish these great industries to receive the proper protection that is due them that they may continue in their most needful pursuits, for we are wholly dependent upon American manufacturers for a market. Will this great Government hand over the goat-raising industry to a Government monopoly? I surely think not. We are asking for a specific duty of 33 cents per pound, scoured basis, as we feel it will come nearer giving just equality to the industry. The a valorem duty, we think, is socially wrong. Reason: When mohair is cheap and we need protection it does not afford the necessary pro tection. It lets in the cheap and undesirable stuff to continue to depress our market, and when mohair is high and a tariff not so badly needed, it has a tendency to keep out the better grades for which there is a constant and ever-growing demand. Therefore, we think that a specific duty is the most adequate means of serving the grower and the manufacturer.

Senator MCCUMBER. Mr. Taylor, would you mind stating just what it cost the American producer to produce a pound of mohairactual cost?

Mr. TAYLOR. The actual cost, as close as I can figure it, in New Mexico, is about 30 to 32 cents now. In California, in Oregon, and in those regions farther north, from the information I have received from those people, it will cost something like 35 to 37 cents. They pay more for their herders there than we pay.

Senator McCUMBER. In Texas, where you lived for many years. what does it cost to produce a pound of mohair wool?

Mr. TAYLOR. From 30 to 32 cents a pound-that is actual cost to produce a pound of mohair, and we feel like we are entitled to more than the actual cost of production, and we must have, of course,

more than actual cost of production or this industry is bound to go down.

Senator MCLEAN. It costs more to raise mohair than it does wool? Mr. TAYLOR. We do not get as many pounds from the animal and our expenses are comparatively the same. It requires the same attendance to care for the goat as it does for the sheep. Therefore, you know it costs more per pound to produce mohair than it does wool.

Senator MCLEAN. And the meat is not worth as much?

Mr. TAYLOR. No; the meat does not bring as much per pound. Senator MCLEAN. Is it expensive to provide fencing for these animals or are they easily confined?

Mr. TAYLOR. They are very easily confined. Any fence that will control sheep, hogs, and things of that kind, will control goats, The angora goat is not a breachy animal.

Senator MCCUMBER. You have stated that you prefer a specific duty. Have you given the duties that you ask for in your brief? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir; I shall. We want 33 cents scoured centent, specific duty.

The difference in labor cost here and abroad I have not been able to get any statistics upon, but I will give it to you as obtained from private correspondence. They are paying $13.50 per month in South Africa for herders, while we are paying $35 to $45 per month for our herders.

They have a mode of transportation in part of that country over there, as Mr. Emery gave it to me when I was in Boston, which was that they hire those people back in those hills to transport this mohair on their backs and they pay them at a rate that amounts to about 5 cents per day, American money, and whenever one of those men gets in there with his little burden, as Mr. Emery put it to me, and he gets 15 or 20 cents a head, he goes on strike for 3 or 4 or 5 days and does not work any more. That is just the information that was given to

me.

Gentlemen, I hope you will consider this. I feel like this is one of the most needed industries, one of the most beneficial industries, that we have got in this country.

Senator MCLEAN. If there is more money in the mutton and wool, why is it this industry is more beneficial than sheep?

Mr. TAYLOR. How is that?

Senator MCLEAN. If there is more money in the mutton and wool and sheep than in mohair and your goat flesh, why do you want to supplant the sheep industry with this industry?

Mr. TAYLOR. We do not want to supplant the sheep industry. This is an industry that does not affect the sheep industry.

Senator MCLEAN. It occupies the same territory that you would naturally raise sheep upon, does it not?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir. But the difference is this: The sheep never look up to get a bite of feed, and the goat will not look down and get anything that is below. [Laughter.]

Senator MCLEAN. Can you raise them together?

Mr. TAYLOR. Absolutely.

Senator MCLEAN. Do they flock together?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir. And where you have got brush on your range, if you are running sheep and not running the goats you are making a financial mistake.

Senator MCLEAN. They do not compete, but they combine?

Mr. TAYLOR. They combine; they work in perfect harmony, one with the other, because the goat will not look down for feed and the sheep will not look up for it.

Senator MCLEAN. Do they have sheep on the ranches with the goats?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir; in many places the most successful ranches in Texas are running sheep with the goats. We have ranches in Texas up in the plains country where they have no brush and few weeds. There they do not have any goats.

Senator MCLEAN. Then why can you not consider the goat as a by-product?

Mr. TAYLOR. Then, let us go back a little further and consider that the goat is about as good a revenue producer as the cow and sheep, and consider the sheep a by-product of the Angora goat?

Senator MCLEAN. I am seeking information.

Mr. TAYLOR. Let your sheep be considered as a by-product.

Senator MCLEAN. I am not asking these questions in the spirit of opposition.

Mr. TAYLOR. I understand that. Let the sheep or cow be a byproduct of the goats, because the goat is the utilizer of something the cow and sheep will not utilize, and which is an absolute waste, and which will not be utilized by any other animal except the goat. So I do not see why you want to class the goat as a by-product when it should be classed as a partner of these other animals.

Senator MCLEAN. If he improves the pasture for the sheep. it would seem that the percentage of the goats that you have are adding to the value of your product just so much more than you would naturally get from the sheep, and consequently there would be a profit in the goat which you would not ordinarily have.

Mr. TAYLOR. Indeed, that is true, because he uses, you might say. the waste product-what has been construed as waste. The leaves fall from the bushes and pack on the ground, and the goat consumes these products, and consequently I do not know whether you could place him as a by-product or not. Possibly you could construe him as a by-product; but, however, he will take his place with the other commercial animals in the way of revenue and, furthermore, be a benefit to the range where you have got quantities of brush.

Senator MCLEAN. He would be a pretty cheap fertilizer for the sheep ranges if he brings them up.

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes; he redeems the range.

Senator MCLEAN. And I suppose that is the use you make of him largely, because, according to your statement, there is not very much profit in the goat alone.

Mr. TAYLOR. We manage to make a living out of them. you know, and to go out and take up claims and reclaim the desert land; and where he is fixed with sheep, then he produces a good revenue-that is, where the two are combined.

Senator MCCUMBER. I notice we have 10 witnesses for Schedule II, and it seems to be unnecessary to have so many to speak upon one subject. It will be impossible to get through with a number of them

if all of them were to speak that we have on this list. So I will ask you to get together if you can and see if not over two or three persons could not cover the subject.

The next witness will be Mr. Samuel S. Dale.

STATEMENT OF MR. SAMUEL S. DALE, CARDED WOOLEN MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, 67 MILK STREET, BOSTON, MASS.

Mr. DALE. Our association is composed of manufacturers of yarn and cloth by what is known as the carded-woolen process, as distinguished from the worsted process. The manufacturers who compose this association are widely separated both by geography and by interest, being in no combine and being financially independent of each other. They are located in Wisconsin, Ohio, Kentucky, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the New England, and other States. Their combined capital is $13,028,000; their annual product is $27,281,000; annual wages, $6,936,989. They operate 1,362 broad looms, 305 narrow looms, 120 knitting machines in connection with the carded-woolen processes, 449 set of cards, and 183,278 spindles.

They ask that Schedule K be revised on a straight ad valorem basis; that the duties be ad valorem on wool, wool by-products, reclaimed wool, partly manufactured goods, tops and yarn, and on cloth. They ask this because any specific duty on products varying so widely in value per pound is necessarily an unfair duty, discriminating in this industry against one class of manufacturers and favoring another class, while at the same time placing a very heavy burden on the American people by reason of its acting as an embargo on low-priced materials.

The specific duty on grease wool has been so thoroughly discredited in years past that it is not necessary to spend very much time in demonstrating its character now. I will, however, give one illustration taken from several that are to be found in the brief we will present.

At the London wool auction on March 12 to 17, 1914, 35,000 bales of grease wool were sold, this being about the last sale before the war broke out. The 11-cent duty if applied to this wool would have given ad valorem equivalents varying from 36 per cent on the highterpriced wools to 147 per cent on the low-priced wools; if the 15-cent duty had been applied to the same wools, the variation in the ad valorem equivalent would have been from 49 per cent to 200 per

cent.

These high duties necessarily act as an embargo. When you place a specific duty on wools varying so widely in value, you in effect say in your law that wools over a certain value shall not be imported. And the wools that are thus shut out are well adapted for warm, durable, and in every way serviceable clothing for the American people.

The effect of the specific duty on grease wools is to exclude the heavy-shrinking wools, because the value of grease wool depends largely upon the amount of grease and dirt clinging to it, and which is removed by the first process of scouring. The more grease and dirt that is attached to the fiber naturally the less is the grease wool worth per pound.