These are a few alternatives, and there are many others of like character, which domestic manufacturers of starch made from corn or potatoes must meet, if they are to continue in business. If the farmer will sell his corn for a less price than he has been selling it, and in so doing derive a less profit than now; if the laborer will work for less wages than now, and less than he ought to receive; and if the manufacturers of starch will sell their goods at a price less than cost, and for less than foreign starch can be imported, then there may be some sort of salvation for the corn-starch industry in this country. Otherwise the Mills bill means destruction. But the prophets of the new revenue reform dispensation preach a novel scheme of salvation. By a reduction of the existing rates of duty the markets of the world are to be opened to us. By closing every starch factory in this country, and with no starch to export, we are to supply the starch markets of the world. They propose by tearing down our protective barriers to build the prohibitive tariff walls against us in other countries still higher. In nineteen countries or provinces of the world the rate of duty on starch is considerably higher than is proposed in the Mills bill. In thirty of the principal countries, provinces or dependencies of the world, the average rate of duty imposed upon starch made from Indian corn is 1.57 cents per pound, or a third greater than is proposed by the Mills bill. In the British provinces of Canada, New South Wales, and Victoria, the average rate of duty on starch is three times greater than is proposed in the Mills bill, and one-third greater than our present duty on starch. In addition, in the following countries or dependencies the duty on corn-starch exported from the United States is higher than is proposed to be levied upon imported starch under the Mills bill: Austria-Hungary, Brazil, Ecuador, Greece, Honduras, Italy, Mexico, Nicaraugua, Peru, Porto Rico, Portugal, Russia, Sweden, United States of Colombia, and Uruguay.

What ports and what markets are to be opened to us by the Mills bill if it becomes a law? If other countries do not change their tariffs upon imports, how are we, as starch manufacturers, to be benefited? What new or old markets can we seek, or in what markets can we better compete than now, under our existing rates of duty upon starch? If the proposed reduction in the duty on starch means a surrender of foreign markets by us, that is one thing; but if the reduction means the opening and access to foreign markets which we do not now have and enjoy, the proposition is quite different, and we are anxious to learn about the new markets to be afforded us. If the cornstarch factories in this country are to be closed, our 14,500 farmers, who cultivate the 480,000 acres which produced the 12,480,000 bushels of corn consumed by the starch Jactories last year, will have to find another market for their grain.

But in the free list of the Mills bill, page 2, lines 22 to 25, it is provided “that if any export duty is laid upon the above-mentioned articles, or either of them, by any country whence imported, all said articles imported from said country shall be subject to duty as now provided by law."

Why does not the bill go further in regard to starch and other products, and provide "that if any import duty is laid upon starch (or other products) produced in the United States by any country to which exported, all starch or substances fit for use as starch or intended for such use (and all other articles, substances, and products), imported from said country, shall be subject to duty as now provided by law." This would seem to be equitable, unless, as in the case of starch, the Mills bill proposes to give foreign producers not only absolute free trade, but afford them a high margin of protection against the starch and other products exported from and produced in this country. Why this difference between the export and import duty of the foreign country? Are we to open our markets to other countries under lower duties than laid by them, as against us, and thus afford them free trade as to our market and protection as to their own? The Mills bill, as introduced and printed, and in the form now being discussed by the House of Representatives, may exemplify the revenue-reform idea, but it does not exemplify free-trade principles. It goes further, and proposes to protect other countries against exports from the United States. For a verification of this statement I refer to the compilation from consular reports as contained in Ex. Doc. No. 58, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, January 5, 1887. I inclose for your information a printed copy of my letter upon starch, addressed to the Hon. Roger Q. Mills, under date of April 2, 1888, which may afford you additional information concerning the corn-starch industry in the United States and other countries.

I also inclose a copy of the Buenos Ayres Herald, April 27, 1888, showing prices of corn (maize), freight rates, and quotations of Argentine currency as compared to our own (gold).

I am, very truly, yours,

21 TAR

S. D. PHELPS.

GLUCOSE-THE EXTENT OF THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES-IMPORTS OF GLUCOSE AND CUSTOMS DUTIES IMPOSED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES UPON GLUCOSE PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES.

[Letter to Hon. William D. Kelley, April 2, 1888.]

NEW YORK, April 2, 1888.

Hon. WILLIAM D. KELLEY,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.:

SIR: Pursuant to your request, I herewith submit the information desired by you concerning the glucose industry in the United States. Under the term "glucose," I include glucose both liquid and solid, which latter product is variously known as grape-sugar, starch-sugar, or corn-sugar.

There are to-day in the United States seventeen glucose manufactories, either in operation or with machinery intact and ready to run as the market may demand. The number of so-called factories in 1885, was twenty, and in 1883, thirty. But many of them were small concerns with inadequate machinery, devoid of the necessary skill, and which produced an inferior grade of goods. In consequence, competition with more improved appliances and processes, and with a superior quality of goods, caused the closing and dismantling of many of these small glucose werk. Although there has been a decrease in the number of factories, there has been no loss in capacity, yield, value of plant, total value of product, or in the amount paid in wages. The difference has been supplied by the enlargement of several factories and the improvement in processes of manufacture.

The following figures regarding the glucose industry, although partially estimated, may be taken as approximately correct:

Number of glucose factories..

17

Capital invested.

Daily capacity, bushels of corn..

Annual capacity, bushels of corn...

Farmers required to raise corn, three men per 100 acres...

Acres of land required to raise corn, at 26 bushels to the acre..

Annual capacity, pounds of glucose

Value of glucose produced annually

Laborers employed in factories.
Amount of wages paid annually.

• Average daily rate of wages........

The corn consumed by the glucose factories equals more than one-third of our total exports of corn and is about one-half of that consumed by the distilleries in the United States. The total product of glucose annually is nearly double the total canesugar production of the Southern States. The glucose factories are located in the States of New York, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and Kansas.

The duty of 20 per centum ad valorem now imposed upon imported glucose is by no means prohibitory, as is shown by the importations for the following years:

The falling-off in the importations in recent years is due to two principal causes-one, the more rigid enforcement of the customs laws, so as to prevent undervalua tions, and the other the relatively low price of corn in this country and the conse quent low price of glucose. Almost all the glucose imported comes from Germany, and is made from potatoes. With our short crop of corn last year the price of corn has risen and is now 33 per cent. higher than last year at this time. The price of glucose has also advanced, but not in as great a ratio. Germany had a good crop of potatoes last year, and glucose being comparatively low in that country, the exports have of late shown a marked increase, and I should not be surprised if for fiscal year 1888 the imports would reach, if not exceed, 4,000,000 pounds.

The so-called Mills bill, or bill of the majority of the Committee on Ways and Means, recently introduced, relating to the reduction of the revenue, leaves the duty of 20

per cent. on glucose as it now is; but the Randall bill makes the duty 1 cent per pound specific. I believe that the duty should be as Mr. Randall has fixed it. The duty of 20 per cent ad valorem on glucose is less than one-half the rate of duty imposed on the lowest grade of cane-sugar, and only about one-fourth as much as is imposed on the highest grades.

As bearing upon this subject, I beg to submit a statement as to customs duties levied by foreign countries upon glucose produced in the United States:

Customs duties, per pound, levied and collected in foreign countries upon glucose produced in the United States.

[Compiled from consular reports, as contained in Ex. Doc. No. 58, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, January 5, 1887.]

Čents.

Switzerland

Turkey......

The average rate per pound of the twenty-eight countries above named, which levy a duty upon glucose, is 2.86 cents. Estimating the average price of glucose in the United States at 3 cents per pound, the duty of 20 per cent. is equivalent to a specific rate of sixty one-hundredths of a cent per pound. The average rate of duty imposed in foreign countries is therefore nearly five times as great as that levied in the United States. We can not export to these countries now and shall not be able to export to them until they change and lower their tariffs upon glucose.

If I can furnish you any other information upon the subject I shall be pleased to

do so.

I am,

Very respectfully, yours,

S. D. PHELPS.

MOHAIR PLUSH GOODS.

WEDNESDAY, July 11, 1888.

Notes of a hearing of D. Goff & Sons, represented by D. L. GOFF, treasurer, of Pawtucket, R. I., and the Sandford Mills, of Sandford, Me., represented by E. M. GOODALL, president, and JOHN HOPEWELL, Jr., treasurer.

Mr. HOPEWELL. I submit these samples for furniture goods, and also some other samples which are used for car seats.

Senator ALDRICH. How long have you been engaged in the manufacture of these goods?

Mr. HOPEWELL. Seven years since we first started, but we have only been in the market four years.

Senator ALDRICH. Prior to seven years ago none of these goods were manufactured in this country?

Mr. HOPEWELL. Not of this class.

Senator ALDRICH. How large a portion of the consumption do you now supply?

Mr. HOPEWELL. I do not suppose we could say.

Senator ALDRICH. Can you give a guess?

Mr. HOPEWELL. Perhaps three-fourth of the furniture plush. We make in the neighborhood of 8,000 pieces.

Senator ALDRICH. How large a portion of the car seating?

Mr. HOPEWELL. A very small portion.

Senator ALDRICH. Those goods are largely imported now?
Mr. HOPEWELL. Almost wholly.

Mr. GOFF. We make about 2,000 cases.

Senator ALDRICH. Do you make all these embossed goods?

Mr. GOFF. Not many. Those are out of style now.

Mr. HOPEWELL. The point we wish to make is that the American consumers have been benefited at least 50 cents a yard by the Ameri can manufacture of these goods.

Senator ALDRICH. And that that does not arise from a reduction in the price of the material?

Mr. HOPEWELL. Not at all.

Mr. GOFF. It arises either from competition, or undervaluation, or both.

Senator ALDRICH. Either legitimate or illegitimate competition? Mr. GOFF. Yes; and we are the sufferers.

Senator ALDRICH. You believe the goods come in largely underval ued, do you?

Mr. HOPEWELL. I have no doubt of it; the present tariff ought to protect us, but does not.

Senator ALDRICH. Your goods now come in as manufactures valued above 80 cents a pound.

Mr. HOPEWELL. That is pretty close. There is a line, but they drop under it sometimes.

Senator ALDRICH. Suppose you should get 34 cents and 25 per cent. ad valorem ?

Mr. GOFF. That is pretty close work.

Mr. HOPEWELL. I will show you the latest importations. Here is a sample of the very last thing. They have been dropping and dropping, until here is the last piece of goods I can get hold of [showing sample]. Mr. GOFF. That is just imported. That comes in for $1 a yard. Mr. HOPEWELL. They sell that for $1 a yard, five off.

Senator ALDRICH. That looks like it was mostly cotton.
Mr. HOPEWELL. No.

Mr. GOFF. When we went into the business we got samples from the importers and dated the samples of purchase; and the plushes we are selling to-day for $60 were selling for $100 a piece, 40 yards in a piece. Senator ALDRICH. That is a reduction of 40 per cent.

Mr. GOFF. It seems to work against us on the better grade of goods. Senator HISCOсK. What do you want?

Mr. HOPEWELL. I think we are pretty well agreed-are we not Mr. Goff and Mr. Goodall?-with the old tariff.

Mr. GOFF. What we are working under now?

Mr. HOPEWELL. Yes.

Senator ALDRICH. What do you say about a specific rate?

Mr. GOFF. I think we ought to have as much specific as we can.

I

think we ought to have as much duty as Wilton carpets, and they have 40 cents a square yard and 30 per cent. ad valorem.

Senator ALDRICH. You would rather have that than 35 cents a yard and 40 per cent. ad valorem?

Mr. GOFF. No; a yard weighs three-quarters of a pound.

Senator HISCOCK. How are you affected by our package clause? Senator ALDRICH. We restored the duty on packages.

Mr. GOFF. That is all new to me. I do not know anything about that. Mr. HOPEWELL. The cases cost about $4 a case, and there are ten pieces to the case. That would not leave much.

Senator HISCOCK. How much would the ten pieces be worth?
Mr. HOPEWELL. At $40 a piece they would be worth $400.

Senator HISCOCK. That would be 1 per cent.?

Mr. HOPEWELL. One per cent.; yes.

Senator ALDRICH We have a suggestion for a provision in regard to silk plushes, which reads like this:

Velvets, plushes, or other pile fabrics in the piece (including ribbons), not otherwise specially provided for in this act, weighing not less than 1 ounce nor more than 8 ounces per square yard, containing less than 25 per cent, and not less than 10 per cent. in weight of silk, $1 per pound and 15 per cent. ad valorem; the same containing less than 50 per cent. and not less than 25 per cent. in weight of silk, $1.50 per pound and 15 per cent. ad valorem.

Of course we could construct a similar clause to that which would apply to wools and worsted plushes.

Mr. GOFF. To make pile fabrics that would include silks?
Senator ALDRICH. That would include these goods.

Mr. GOFF. Yes; that would give us the benefit of a specific duty better than the present rate.

Senator ALDRICH. We could make it all of one rate, or we could classify it as to value.

Mr. HOPEWELL. I am afraid of that value business; that is what troubles us all the time. I have a letter from New York, from Mr. Hines, in which he says that he had obtained information of a case