The Washington times., 1911-05-03
SHOE MACHINERY
TRUST Barred BY.
NANUF FACTURERS
Sensational Testimony Is
Sprung Unexpectedly Be-
! fore Finance Committee.
CONTINUED from First Page.)

CONTINUED from First Page)
up its ears and took notice as witnesses
recited the details of the story of how
the United Shoe Machinery Company
held the shoe manufacturers of this
country in thralldom. and how under
the system pursued by the company in
question the foreign manufacturers of
shoes, especially the English. got much
more favorable treatment than Ameri-
can shoe manufacturers.
Senators Interested.
The hearing set out to be one in which
the shoe manufacturers were to tell the
Finance Committee why they ought not
to be subjected to free shoes. But it
had not got far before the United Shoe
Machinery Company was run into. The
committee found itself much more in
terested in the story of how what =
alleged to be a trust was keeping the
shoe manufacturers in subjection than
II was in the simple matter of duties
on boots and shoes.
If the temper displayed at the hearing
today by Sena tors who were told about
the shoe machinery company Is any in
dication, there will be strenuous demand
in the Senate for prosecution of the
United Shoe Machinery Company and
for the testing in the courts of the va
lidity of its contracts.
Today's Witnesses.
The witnesses before the committee
TO-DAY were members of the Western
Shoe Manufacturers Association. They
came from st. Louis, Chicago, Milwau-
kee, and other shoe manufacturing cceu-
tiers of the West. The first one to speak
vas William D'OCnch of St. Louis, OF
a leading shoe company there. Mr.
- Oench Started out TO tell the commit
tee how the shoe business had suffered
because the duty had been lowered on
shoes from 25 per cent to 10 and 10 per
cent.
The witness recited to the committee
the list of articles going into the manu-
farture of shoes and the duty on each.
In this connection Mr.. D'OenCh pointed
out that the English manufacturer of
shoes had asgreat advantage in that all
the articles used in shoe making could
he imported free in that country while
here there were duties imposed on these
articles. He cited the case of Ger
tain kind of wire which costs IA cents
in England and So cents here.
II WAS at this point that the commit
tee began to learn something about the
opera tiOns of the United Shoe Machinery
Company. Mr.. D'OenCh was asked why
the American manufacturer didn't i'm
port the wire, since the English cost
plus the duty was far less than the
American cost.
Eplains Trust"
Mr.. D'OenCh explained that the United
Shoe Machinery Company, which he
said was trust, controlled in this mat
ter. The American shoe manufacturers
signed leases on the machinery of the
company and at the same time had to
use the material furnished by the COM
pany. The company controlled the wire
about which he had been talking.
tically all the shoe machinery. in this
country" said Mr.. D'Oench.
In answer to questions he said IL was
q Boston concern and was an Amer
lean organization.
Senator Hepburn. Senator SmoOt, and
others, asked if il did not control the
patents to the machinery in question.
and if this control was not the basis
of the alleged monopoly.
The basic patents have expired,
said the witness.
He then explained that the only way
the American manufacturer could get
shoe machinery was 10 lease IL from the
Shoe Machinery trust. which at the
same time furnished the wire and other
parts. Mr.. D'Oen"h said as good ma
chimes could be got in Europe, but there
was a Is per cent duty on them.
Senator Simmons asked why not abol-
ish the duty.
That would relieve us very mucl~"
SAID IQe MlIneSS.
Senator Smoot then asked why the
American shoe manufacturers did not
buy English machines and pay the duty.
Because the United Shoe Machinery
Company would come into our plants
and take every machine out"
Long Contracts.
In the course of the hearing it de-
veloped that the shoe manufacturers
were tied up to the Shoe Machinery
trust by seventeen-year contracts, that
the trust had some machines which the
manufacturers could not get in Europe.
and that unless the Government smash
cd the United Shoe Machinery COM
turers felt they were helpless.
Mr.. DOonCh told OF the efforts Of
Thomas G. Plant. of Boston. to conf
pete in making shoe machinery with
the trust, and how some months ago
the trust bought him out
Milton S. Florsheim, of Chicago, gave
other details of the grip the shoe ma
Chinery trust has on the manufacturer
here. He said there was no market
here for competing shoe machinery
company because the manufa cturers Of
year contracts and no capital would go
into the business of competing with the
shoe machinery company.
'Our lawyers have advised us this
contract is valid" said he.
Senator Bailey declared that the
courts had decided a hundred times thai
such contracts were not valid and that
they were not worth the paper they
were written on. He said IL any such
contract was signed in Texas and the
facts certified to a district attorney