Men's Sewed Straw Hats: Report of the United Stated Tariff Commission to the President of the United States (1926)

In Short

This document is a 1926 official inquiry by the United States Tariff Commission regarding the production costs of men's sewed straw hats. It serves as a bureaucratic snapshot of the early 20th-century textile economy, detailing the logistics of Italian and English imports versus American manufacturing. The report is significant for its methodical breakdown of the "cost-of-production" standard used to justify trade protectionism. It survives as a historical record of how government agencies navigated international market competition, labor wage variations, and the complex, shifting definitions of trade fairness during the mid-1920s.

The Story

The narrative begins in 1924, when the United States Tariff Commission initiates a formal investigation to determine whether the existing 60 percent tariff on imported straw hats sufficiently protects the domestic industry. The core issue is the rise of low-cost imports, which manufacturers in Maryland, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts claim are undercutting their prices. The Commission’s investigators travel to Italy and England to secure cost data, while simultaneously auditing nineteen domestic factories that produce the vast majority of American-made straw hats.

The investigation reveals a striking divide in the market. Cheap straw hats are flooding in from Italy, where labor and material costs are significantly lower than in the United States. Conversely, higher-quality, more expensive hats arrive from England. The investigators struggle with the lack of standardization in production, noting that variations in braid quality, trimming, and finishing processes make a direct "average cost" comparison almost impossible. Instead, they focus on three specific types of hats, using these as proxies for the broader market.

As the commission collects data, a tension emerges between the commissioners regarding the interpretation of the law. Commissioner Edward P. Costigan, in a separate statement, argues that the data is not only incomplete but potentially misleading. He points out that the commission failed to account for the selling expenses of importers, which are costs that effectively act as a barrier to the domestic market. He also expresses concern that the limited sampling of domestic manufacturers may have inadvertently inflated American production costs, creating an artificial justification for higher protection.

Despite these reservations, the commission reaches a consensus that Italy is the principal competing country for lower-priced goods. The report highlights that domestic factories, often hampered by seasonal demand and high labor costs, are losing ground to these Italian imports. The debate shifts to whether the tariff should be a blunt instrument or a surgical tool. While some commissioners argue that the data warrants a dual approach—increasing tariffs on cheap hats while decreasing them on luxury imports from England—the final recommendation focuses heavily on the protection of the lower-priced segment.

The story concludes with a presidential proclamation signed by Calvin Coolidge in February 1926. Acting on the commission's findings, the President orders an increase in the duty on imported straw hats valued at $9.50 or less per dozen, raising the rate from 60 percent to 88 percent. The higher-priced hats, meanwhile, remain subject to the existing tariff structure. The document ends with the formal, legal language of the proclamation, closing the investigation and setting a new economic threshold for the industry.

How It Unfolds

The mandate for inquiry The Commission initiates an investigation under the Tariff Act of 1922 to compare production costs between domestic factories and foreign competitors. Investigators are dispatched to Italy and England, while domestic manufacturers open their ledgers to prove that imports are threatening their market stability.

The complexity of comparison Because straw hats vary wildly in quality and material, the Commission struggles to find a fair standard for comparison. They eventually settle on specific hat styles and braid measurements to create a mathematical baseline for the cost-of-production analysis.

The dissent of the data Commissioner Costigan challenges the report’s conclusions, arguing that the omission of importer expenses and the narrow sampling of domestic factories skew the findings. He suggests that the data actually indicates a need for both higher and lower tariffs depending on the hat's value, rather than a uniform increase.

The final proclamation After months of hearings and argument, the Commission submits its recommendations to the White House. President Calvin Coolidge formalizes the findings by issuing a proclamation that raises the tariff on low-cost hats to 88 percent, effectively finalizing the protectionist stance.

The People

Thomas O. Marvin, as Chairman of the Tariff Commission, leads the investigation and oversees the compilation of the final report. He represents the commission’s official institutional voice, focused on achieving a consensus that satisfies the statutory requirements for "equalizing" production costs.

Edward P. Costigan, a dissenting Commissioner, stands as the most critical intellectual force in the document. He is not satisfied with a simple, one-size-fits-all tariff hike. He wants the commission to acknowledge the nuance of the market, specifically the difference between cheap Italian hats and luxury British imports. His skepticism regarding the report's methodology—specifically the failure to count importer selling expenses—serves as a vital counterweight to the majority's desire for a swift, protective increase.

Calvin Coolidge, the President of the United States, appears at the very end as the final arbiter. His role is to transform the Commission's technical arguments into law. By signing the proclamation, he validates the claim that the domestic industry requires government intervention to survive, confirming that his administration supports the adjustment of the tariff to protect American manufacturers from the influx of foreign goods.

In Its Own Voice

"The domestic field work was carried on during the period August to October, 1924, and the foreign work in Italy and England during the period October, 1924, to February, 1925."

This sentence captures the extensive, labor-intensive process of fact-finding required by the Commission across multiple countries.

"A significant feature of this table is the increase in imports from Italy and the decrease of imports from both the United Kingdom and Germany."

The report uses this observation to identify the shift in trade patterns that necessitated the government's intervention.

"The failure to include interest on invested capital in the Italian costs might justify the exclusion of the rent item from the American overhead costs."

Commissioner Costigan highlights how technical accounting disputes regarding overhead and rent could fundamentally change the resulting tariff recommendations.

What It's Really About

The text functions as a deep dive into the philosophy of economic protectionism during the 1920s. Underneath the technical data about straw hats lies the central question of whether trade policy should serve to equalize the "disadvantage" of domestic manufacturers against foreign labor markets. It explores the tension between objective data collection and the subjective, political nature of setting tax policy. The argument is fundamentally about the limits of bureaucracy: can a government report truly capture the "fair" price of an item when global supply chains, fluctuating wage rates, and business overheads are involved? The book argues that tariff policy is never a purely mathematical exercise, but rather a reflection of the national desire to shield local industries from global competitive pressure.

Why Read It Today

Readers with an interest in economic history, public policy, or the mechanics of government will find this report fascinating. It captures a distinct moment when international trade was undergoing a shift in regulation, and it serves as a primary source for understanding how early 20th-century bureaucracy functioned. The prose is dry and technical, as one would expect from a government report, but it rewards the patient reader with a granular look at how a specific, seemingly niche industry—men's straw hats—was used to test the limits of national tariff law.

The book is challenging because it is essentially a collection of data, tables, and legalistic arguments, not a narrative history. There is no character development or plot; the "characters" are commissioners debating accounting methods. However, for those who enjoy the "detective work" of history, the report is a goldmine. It feels like stepping into a cold, wood-paneled office in 1925 Washington, D.C. What stays with you is the realization that even a century ago, the debate over global trade, the protection of local jobs, and the fairness of international competition was just as complex and contentious as it remains today. It is a dense, exacting look at how a single commodity can become a battlefield for national economic strategy.