the original intent was that they should be published solely for the appraisers throughout the United States and not given to the press, because they expose one's business. It is perfectly proper that the appraising officer at every port should have the information, but the public should not have it. The press should not have it.

Mr. WORRALL. So far as we are concerned, I do not suppose any house ever had less friction with the Government, but it is simply a desire to have the administrative law in proper workable shape. I have taken a great deal of interest in it for a good many years.

Mr. GIBB. It is very uncomfortable for a man who is caught stealing to have it mentioned in the newspapers.

Mr. MCKEEVER. He is not caught stealing.

Mr. WORRALL. There are lots of cases where it is manifestly unfair. Mr. GIBB. I believe in publicity.

Mr. WRIGHT. I suggest that cases of advance be published, and that where there is no advance no report be made.

Senator JONES, of Arkansas. I have been very much interested in these matters. I should like to ask another question of some gentleman familiar with the subject. Are the conditions of which you have been speaking peculiar to the United States, or do they prevail in other countries?

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. What conditions?

Senator JONES, of Arkansas. The method of selling goods by agents. Mr. WORRALL. They can not prevail in England, because there is no duty there on this class of stuff.

Mr. MCCREERY. As a matter of fact, I may say I am very well acquainted with many manufacturers in Germany. They sell their goods in England precisely as here. The representative of the manufacturer goes to the dealer and presents the goods in English money. Mr. WORRALL. Who delivers the goods?

Mr. MCCREERY. The manufacturer or his agent. They have agents there.

Mr. GIBB. They have an agent for taking the orders, but they deliver the goods direct from the manufacturer.

Mr. WORRALL. It is totally different from what it is here in that respect.

Mr. GIBB. The sole object of the system is to enable the manufacturer to invoice goods to himself at a lower price than he will sell to you or to me.

Mr. WORRALL. One of the plans I have suggested is that the United States should have a proper man in London, who, if he is the right kind of man, could find out the prices at which the goods come to the large London warehouses. I would undertake the job and guarantee to find the value. That is the best proof of value, because that country is entirely free of duty in regard to these stuffs. That plan has never been adopted.

Mr. MCCREERY. American manufacturers sell their goods in the money of the country to other countries in the same way that those goods are sold here.

STATEMENT OF W. J. MATHESON.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. What is the name of your firm?
Mr. MATHESON. Wm. J. Matheson & Co., Limited.
Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. It is a corporation?
Mr. MATHESON. Yes, sir.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. Proceed with your statement. Mr. MATHESON. I suppose I must speak simply to the administrative act; that on nothing else we may try your patience.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. We are not inquiring about changes of law in regard to duties, but as to the administrative part of the act. Mr. MATHESON. What I should like to call attention to is the practice which at present prevails on the part of the Board of Appraisers on reappraisement. I refer to the testimony against the importer being taken secretly, the importer having no knowledge of what the testimony is and no opportunity to confront the witnesses who are called. The appraisers, for that reason, have no opportunity to tell whether the so-called expert testimony is given by people qualified to testify as experts. It is a system which, I think, obtains nowhere outside of Russia and possibly in some of the French trials that have taken place-court-martial cases. It seems to me to be entirely un-American and capable of the greatest abuses.

The objection to giving an opportunity to the importer in such cases to hear the testimony against him is that it would embarrass the appraisers; that it would take their time, and that their witnesses would be reluctant to testify if they were subjected to examination. But the same plea might be made with respect to any trial in which a citizen's rights are jeopardized.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. I think the theory upon which the appraisement of goods proceeds, according to the law, both by the appraiser and the general appraisers on appeal and by the Board of Appraisers on final appeal, is that it is an appraisement and not a judicial proceeding.

Senator JONES, of Arkansas. It is the ascertainment of a fact.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. It is the ascertainment of a fact in regard to value, and that the same rules of testimony and procedure and trial do not apply in reference to such matters as in reference to a strict judicial proceeding. I think that is the theory of the law.

Mr. MATHESON. The only similar procedure that I call to mind at the moment is that of real estate appraisements for taxation. They, of course, are taken secretly in the same way as testimony in these cases is taken. An aggrieved party has no right to know what evidence has moved the appraisers to advance his valuation, but he has a right to have the whole matter reviewed by the courts if he feels that he is aggrieved. That stands as a safeguard, and has stood as a safeguard to prevent injustices, whereas in cases of reappraisement of property there is no such safeguard. It is quite conceivable that a number of competitors of an importer, or men who may be maliciously inclined, may conspire to deceive the appraiser, and as he is only human it is conceivable that he may be deceived. He can not be supposed to be expert along every line of the vast number of articles that come into this port for him to pass upon.

Senator JONES, of Arkansas. Is it your idea that an appraiser should not be allowed to exercise the knowledge which he personally has in this business, or that he may pick up in the street, and that he should be confined to what testimony is brought before him as you would in a trial in court?

Mr. MATHESON. No, sir. My only idea is that provided the appraiser is going to hold secret sessions, at which the aggrieved party can not be given entrance, or of which he can not have knowledge, the importer shall be allowed to appeal to the court; that the judgment of the appraiser shall not be final.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. The appraiser is not obliged to hold any session at all.

Mr. MATHESON. As a matter of fact, the appraiser takes testimony from various parties as to the value of the goods.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. I suppose that is a matter of the administration of the law. If a case goes to Mr. Tichenor about values, I suppose he can sit down and take up that case without asking anybody anything. He says, "I am an expert myself."

Mr. MATHESON. My idea would be to have it go to the circuit court, as matters of classification now do, but not before a jury. The court determines, upon the evidence which is put before the Board of Appraisers, whether their determination is or is not correct. My only idea is that the importer shall have the same right as to appraisement that he has in respect to classification. It seems to me un-American, to put it mildly, that there should be secret sessions held in which a man's property is jeopardized, to which he can have no access at all. He does not know the nature of the accusation made against him. It is quite conceivable that a conspiracy can be formed, and I know in one or two instances they have been. But I have never had any special grievance myself, because the Board of Appraisers have been so skillful and have been able to detect any conspiracy attempted to be practiced upon them.

Senator JONES, of Arkansas. A conspiracy involving everybody connected with the appraisement?

Mr. MATHESON. No, sir. Take, for instance, special agents. Their business is to make cases against importers. If they do not make a certain number of cases they are considered not to be attending to their duties properly.

Senator JONES, of Arkansas. The importer can appeal to the Board of General Appraisers?

Mr. MATHESON. Yes, sir; but in such cases

Senator JONES, of Arkansas. You would have to take the Board of General Appraisers into such a conspiracy.

Mr. MATHESON. I would not have it understood that way for a moment. I regret that anything I have said could indicate that, because it is far from my meaning. I do not believe the Board of General Appraisers are in a position where any such suspicion can attach to them.

Senator JONES, of Arkansas. Under the present law every man has a remedy who has been subjected to any such wrong.

Mr. MATHESON. I claim that the general appraisers can be deceived.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. Do you think we would be more likely to have substantial justice administered if there was an appeal to the circuit court on a question of value; if that was not finally determined by the Board of Appraisers? Do you think the law could be administered any better, either for the importer or for the Government, if such an appeal were allowed?

Mr. MATHESON. I think the shorter way would be to have the sessions open. I think that would be the shorter and more admirable

way.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. You said you thought there ought to be an appeal on the question of value just as much as on that of classification.

Mr. MATHESON. It seems to me there should be; but I think there would be very little occasion for it if the sessions were open. The

cases would be hopeless for an appeal if the appraisers decided it. They are competent men. They are about as capable as any circuit judges.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. Do the Board of General Appraisers hold anything that approaches the character of a court in determining these questions?

Mr. MATHESON. In respect to classification?

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. In respect to values.

Mr. MATHESON. In respect to valuation, I think they do. We had a little case of some few goods that came from Canada. It is the only case I can recall in fifteen or twenty years where we have had a reappraisement. The goods were invoiced at our cost. It was held that they should have been invoiced at the wholesale market price in Canada. There was no wholesale market price in Canada. The thing had been worked up, so far as we know, by a special agent who wanted to make his case. The appraiser told me that he had stacks of evidence on the case. It seemed to me to be about a foot high on a table. The amount of duty we paid in excess of what was invoiced was $28. The attention which was given to it was entirely out of proportion. Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. You are speaking from the standpoint of a man who does not wish to cheat the Government?

Mr. MATHESON. Yes, sir; that is my standpoint.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. But you realize that a law must be framed for people who do wish to cheat the Government?

Mr. MATHESON. Yes, sir; I do.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. Therefore the man who does not wish to cheat the Government will necessarily sometimes, perhaps, have to submit to some inconvenience that he might not have to submit to if there were not a disposition on the part of people, good, bad, and otherwise, to evade the payment of duties?

Mr. MATHESON. The only point I wish to make for your consideration is this: Of course I would not venture to argue the matter with anyone, because I am simply a layman and not a lawyer, yet it seems to me un-American that a man should be deprived of his property or any portion of it without an opportunity to hear his accusers, to hear the other side.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. You start with the idea that there is an accusation against you. That does not necessarily follow.

Mr. MATHESON. We ought to have an opportunity to hear the evidence and to ascertain whether the people who testify are qualified to testify as experts. Of course, appraisers must, in the course of events, take expert testimony on such things as they are not experts in. It is not conceivable that an appraiser can be expert along the line of textile fabrics and metals and everything else, and then be expert along the line of chemistry, and specially the most abstruse part, the class of dyes in which I am interested, the manufacture of which is the profoundest thing in chemistry. I do not think it is conceivable that an appraiser could be expert in that line, and he might be deceived by people who claim to be experts.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. You want, then, practically a trial in the usual form before the Board of Appraisers?

Mr. MATHESON. That is what I desire.

STATEMENT OF CARL B. FRANC.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. What is your business, and whom do you represent?

Mr. FRANC. I am an importer of drugs and chemicals. I am of the firm of R. W. Thair & Co. I am a member of the subcommittee of the drug-trade section of the New York Board of Trade and Transportation as importer.

We refer particularly to section 8, part of which I will read:

"That all articles of foreign manufacture, such as are usually or ordinarily marked, stamped, branded, or labeled, and all packages containing such or other imported articles, shall, respectively, be plainly marked, stamped, branded, or labeled in legible English words in a conspicuous place, so as to indicate the country of their origin and the quantity of their contents."

The requirement as to the country of origin has always been followed since the law went into existence, and no one will say one word of objection to it. The question of contents, however

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. Quantity?

Mr. FRANC. The quantity of contents. I myself never did pay much attention to it, and in our trade in particular it seems an unreasonable burden upon us. The drugs which are imported are crude drugs. I will speak of crude drugs first. They are sold by the pound, and in most cases the invoice weight does not play any character whatever in the transaction or sale. The goods always have to be reweighed here and the weigher's certificate has to be rendered when the goods are delivered to the buyer. Most of these are free goods. At one time the Government thought they were advanced in value, and an attempt was made to collect 10 per cent and a quarter of a cent per pound duty on them; but those cases, as I am informed, have all been settled, and they are again on the free list.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. The same package will contain free goods and dutiable goods?

Mr. FRANC. No. The package I refer to contains free goods, crude drugs. The question is one of weight, and I do not see how the Government can have any interest in having it marked.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. Give us a specific illustration by citing an article.

Mr. FRANC. Take, for instance, coriander seed.

One of the mem

bers of our committee has had an experience with that article. Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. Coriander seed in its crude state? Mr. FRANC. Yes.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. Does this law apply to that article? Mr. W. F. McCONNELL. It applies both to free and dutiable goods. Mr. FRANC. That is the way the appraisers make it apply. They require it on every package, whether free or dutiable, because the law reads so. It is a question of the reading of the law.

I do not know whether you are aware of the fact that drugs are sold at a very small profit. Heretofore people have had the idea that in drugs there is an enormous profit.

Senator PLATT, of Connecticut. There is a good profit at retail and a small profit at wholesale.

Mr. FRANC. Exactly. A quarter of a cent is a very fair profit in the drug line; an eighth of 1 per cent is more common than a quarter. If these goods, which heretofore have been weighed in drafts of 5 or 10