STATEMENT OF ELSAS, MAY & CO.,

Bag manufacturers, Atlanta, Ga.

In looking over the Mills bill we find that it aims blows at the cotton industry, viz, it lets jute come in free, and the same would be manufactured into cloth which would largely take the place of cotton goods. It also allows burlaps under 60 inches to come in free of duty; which means that these goods would be used in place of cotton for such articles as export bags and various other articles. Strange to say, the same bill puts a duty of 25 per cent. on jute yarns, while it takes the duty off burlaps, which are made of the same kind of yarn. Really, in this instance, one may say, "O! consistency, what a jewel." Now, we, in our judgment, think it would be best for a specific duty per pound to be put on such goods. Making an ad valorem duty per yard leaves room for the practice of fraud against the Government, while our theory would obviate this and justice could be done to all. We would suggest that the duty be 14 cents per pound on all burlaps under 60 inches wide; if wider, 13 cents. We beg to say to you that we think all cotton manufacturers should unite to bring this matter before Congress, as it aims at the most part of our industry. We omitted to say above that on export bags, made of burlaps, the duty is refunded to the parties shipping these goods to England, and after the flour has been carried and the duty refunded, these goods are admitted to this country again free of duty.

STATEMENT OF EDWIN A. HARTSHORN, OF TROY, N. Y.

The flax fiber now wasted in the Western States and Territories is of great value. It is far superior to jute in strength and durability, and can be made a source of large profit. The native word for jute in India, where it is grown, is equivalent to our "sham" or "humbug," and its cheapness is its principal merit. It can be sold cheap, because it is grown and cleaned by cheap labor.

The farmer in India is quite content with 6 or 8 cents a day for labor, and can live on rice at a daily cost of less than 2 cents. Hence it is possible to purchase good clean jute at 24 to 33 cents a pound, delivered in New York, freight, duty, insurance, and all charges paid.

At these prices it is not strange that the Western farmer makes the most money out of his flax crop by burning the fiber up. It is, however, only a question of labor-cost, as this wasted fiber is excellent material for carpet yarns, twines, cordage, canvas, burlap, toweling, crash, and many other goods.

The flax fiber now wasted in Minnesota and other Western States and Territories is of great value.

The first method is impossible, and altogether suicidal to the best interests of our country; but the second is entirely feasible and human. We do not want cheaper labor on this side of the Atlantic. We can solve the linen problem by the other and better method. Let European manufacturers understand that we are determined to produce flax fiber and make linen goods here, and they will speedily transfer machinery to this country. Several of the leading linen-thread makers of Europe have already established mills in the United States.

The total exports of linen piece-goods from Great Britain to all parts of the world in 1880 were 162,247,300 yards at a value of $26,321,203. About one-half these goods, or exactly 78,169,400 yards, valued at $11,335,354, came to 50,000,000 people in the United States for consump tion, while the rest of the world (save Great Britain), numbering 1,348,000,000, took the balance-one and two-fifths yards each for Americans, and one-sixteenth of one yard each for the balance of mankind.

We can not afford to continue the annual destruction of thousands of tous of flax fiber while each American equals twenty-two other people in the consumption of linen piece-goods exported from Great Britain. The time is not far distant when the fiber of American flax may be more valuable than the seed, and when fiber and seed shall both be utilized flax will be a greater source of wealth, acre for acre, than wheat. The United States has a soil and climate well adapted to the growth of flax and the manufacture of linen goods. When cultivated only for the seed, flax is a profitable crop, and the fiber, now so largely wasted, is more valuable, if properly treated, than the seed.

The United States is the most important linen goods market in the world, standing at the head of nations in consumption and at the foot in production.

This peculiar situation exists because wages are higher. here than in Europe. The American people have the ability to consume more linens than other people by reason of an industrial system insuring higher wages to the working people; and by reason of higher wages other products requiring less labor are more profitable than flax. Hence, after a generous soil has produced the fiber, it pays our farmers better to burn up 40,000 to 50,000 tons of flax annually, worth, if properly. treated, $10,000,000 to $12,000,000, than prepare the fiber for spinning.

To stimulate the production of flax fiber in the United States, a tax or duty of $20 per ton, or about 83 per cent., is imposed upon foreign flax. This insignificant and insufficient protection of less than 1 cent per pound it is now proposed to take away from the agriculturist in order to encourage efforts in flax culture. We want more American flax than the farmer will produce at 12 cents per pound, and we there fore propose to remove the tax from imported flax, so that the farmer will hereafter get only 11 cents per pound.

This is an absurdity and an insult, and we credit the American farmer with very little intelligence when we attempt to blind him with such

chaff.

We should not degrade American farm labor and farmers' profits to the low level of Russia, for we now have the best home market that the word affords, as a direct result of well paid labor and profitable agriculture, and yet we wish to become larger producers of flax fiber. There is absolutely but one way to do it, and that is by increasing the present tariff, or tax, upon foreign flax.

If we want cheap flax, let us increase the duty, and thereby stimu late flax culture. This will insure competition, and soon we will be supplying our own wants and exporting flax to other nations.

This is the result of adequate protection, and who can tell what five or six years of real protection will do for the flax industry of the United States?

It is the increase, not the abolition, of duty which everywhere works these charmed results. Let us, therefore, increase the duty upon flax to $60 per ton, rather than abolish the present duty. We need not be afraid of high labor-costs. Well-paid labor can never obstruct, but will

always advance civilization and general prosperity. The factor that has made us more prosperous than Russia, India, or China should not frighten us.

STATEMENT OF BENTLEY & GERWIG,

Manufacturers of twines and yarns, New Brighton, Pa.

Permit us to call attention to a few points in the Mills bill that directly affect our interests.

1. Whereas cotton and woolen goods are granted an average protec tion of about 40 per cent., flax, hemp, and jute goods are reduced to 15 and 25 per cent. This, we think, is a great injustice. While cotton and woolen manufacturers get all their supply of raw material in this country, we, as flax, hemp, and jute manufacturers, will be compelled, probably, because they are on the free list, to get our supply of stock from foreign countries, and thus freights would be against us, in competing with foreign countries; while in cotton and woolen goods the advantages would be the other way.

2. Then, again, on machinery. Cotton and woolen machinery is nearly all made here, because these industries have grown so large that the manufacture of cotton and woolen machinery has developed as well and in same proportion, while the manufacture of flax, hemp, and jute machinery has not developed, because those industries are yet in their infancy, not having been sufficiently protected and fostered. Hence the machinery for these fibers is imported at heavy duties. The demand for this class of machinery is yet so small that it will not justify machinists in getting up patterns and tools to make said machinery. The expense would exceed the profits.

(3) We do not think it would be wise at this time to take duty off hemp and flax, because if it is they would not then be produced in this country, and foreign hemp is not so well adapted for binding cord as American hemp, and is higher in price. Our business then would fail or at least be seriously injured for want of suitable raw material. By fostering flax and hemp culture other fibers are held in check, and thus the harvest cord is cheapened to the consumer.

(4) We wish to state another fact: In our Western States there is a very large quantity of flax raised for seed alone, allowing fiber to go to waste, and this is because it comes in under such light duty that it is not profitable to dress it out. In other words, duty is not equivalent to the labor necessary. During the war and a few years after, while there was a premium on gold-which was equivalent to that much extra duty-we got all the flax we could use, and that raised in our immediate neighborhood. But since premium on gold disappeared flax has almost entirely ceased as a product of the United States.

5. In case of war that should involve Russia-from which country we get most of our raw material-we should be in a bad fix, not having it at home and cut off abroad. As a matter of history, during Napoleon's war with Russia, in 1807, hemp went up from $290 to $590 per ton, and flax from $340 to $710 per ton. The same was true during the Crimean war; and during our own late war hemp advanced from $80 to $180.

6. We would mention still another point. If we had to depend on foreign material, we in the interior would be at a great disadvantage. In our own case about one-half of our production is sold in the East.

Hence we would have to pay freights both ways, which would practically prevent our competing with manufacturers on the sea-board.

7. Then, again, it does not seem reasonable that cordage should have 25 per cent. duty while flax, hemp, and jute yarns and all twines of same should only have 15 per cent. It should be exactly the reverse, as twines and yarns are finer than cordage, and hence more labor on them; they should have 20 per cent. more instead of 10 per cent. less duty.

And lastly, it is a mistake to have two duties on twines-one for hemp and jute and another for flax. It will lead to undervaluation and injustice. The fibers are so similar that only experts could tell the difference, and we could not expect the Government inspectors to be experts on this class of goods. Hence the higher class would be brought in under lower duties, greatly to our disadvantage.

In conclusion, we can not see any reason for this discrimination against a young and struggling industry. Our profits have never been excessive. Our manufacturers have never had any combinations or trusts to control prices or labor.

We, ourselves, have been struggling here in this place forty years, and have succeeded with great effort and after overcoming many diffi culties in building up a business, the manufacture of twines, yarns, and binding cord from American hemp and flax.

And we now beg of you to exert your influence in protecting our interests and business, and thus prevent utter ruin coming upon us if existing duties are made any lower.

STATEMENT OF JOHN P. CONKEY, OF DUBUQUE, IOWA.

Let me ask your special consideration of the Mills tariff bill, with respect to flax, flaxseed, linseed oil, and hemp, and the manufactures from flax and hemp fibers. To place them on the free list, as the bill proposes to do, is simply to destroy the agricultural industry of raising flax and hemp, and ultimately to leave manufactures from these fibers at the mercy of importers without competition.

At the annual meeting of the Flax and Hemp Spinners and Growers' Association two years ago, at which I was present, after a full and frank expression of views, in which any supposed opposition of interests be tween the growers and the spinners was thoroughly discussed, substan tial harmony was reached and a resolution was unanimously adopted declaring identity of interests.

Manufacturers found that whatever benefit might inure to them by the free introduction of the fibers and the seed would be more than counterbalanced by its inevitable and disastrous effect on the production of them in our own country.

Trustworthy tables show that among the leading industries of the country the item "flax, hemp, jute, and the manufactures of them," rates fourth in the invoice value of imports, while it rates twenty-ninth in the list of protected articles. In other words, twenty-eight classifications have greater protection than flax, hemp, jute, and their manufactures. Why, then, should the duty on these articles be reduced! But to remove it altogether can hardly be regarded as less than hostility to the industry in all its branches.

It may hardly be doubted that, with suitable encouragement, and promise of its permanence, flax might easily become an important pro

duction of Iowa, largely compensating for the wide abandonment of wheat; while the same encouragement would stimulate various manu. factures from flax to such an extent as to more than compensate for the loss incurred by the large reduction in wheat culture. The coarser manufactures would gradually extend over the State and thereby create such a demand for skilled labor as would give better employment to a large number of our people who, otherwise, must be content with the lowest scale of compensation for their work.

The above views are forcibly urged in the reports of the last two meetings of the association above named, which are mailed to you in the hope of their receiving such consideration as you may be able to give them and the importance of the subject justly claims from our lawmakers.

My interest in the tariff question is not at all confined to the articles herein noted, nor is it of a temporary character. On the contrary, my opinions were formed from the discussions in which Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Wright, Clayton, and their compeers engaged nearly fifty years ago; and the whole history of our country, as well in war as in peace and equally in both, has been an uninterrupted confirmation of the doctrine that protection of labor, in whatever sphere of its operation, is the one vital element of national prosperity and an indispensable condition of our national life.

My appeal to you therefore is in behalf of Iowa not alone, but as well for the whole nation, for whose welfare it is your distinguished privilege and most responsible office to legislate.

Let me add one or two reflections induced by the present general discussion of the tariff question.

Names or words are essential things. However trite the saying, seldom does it have more pertinence and force than in this discussion. It is the old and ever-recurring cheat of parading distinctions where there is no difference.

It will hardly be questioned that the discussion is chiefly an argument with respect to manufacturers as contrasted with raw materials; and the professed aim of both protectionists and free-traders is to so adjust imports that manufacturers shall be able to get their "raw materials," no matter where produced, at a minimum cost for the sake of the consumer, while the producers of the "raw materials" shall yet be able to secure fair remuneration for their labor in a sure and permanent market. But the opponents in the discussion differ widely (or think they do) as to the relative effects of a tariff on the real and abiding interests of manufacturers and of the producers of raw materials.

But suppose it be a simple fact, with so few and rare exceptions as to be substantially universal, that the so-called manufacturers and the producers of raw materials belong to and constitute one single class that admits of no division, what becomes of the vaunted distinction? Where is the alleged difference? Precisely this is the case in hand. There is no "raw material," in the only proper and defensible sense of the phrase, possible in the question of a tariff. On the contrary, all products of labor are manufactures, whether in the literal or technical sense of the word. It matters not where or by what means the labor is done; the product of it is equally and most truly a manufacture.

It is only the product of labor, performed by man's hands or other agency under his control, that is or can be the subject of impost. The time, place, and instruments of the labor are only qualifying incidents, and are wholly irrelevant to the true question at issue, to wit: What, if any, is the difference between manufactures and raw materials as re